By the Court.—Mohan Ram is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26621 of 2014 (Mohan Ram v. State of U.P. and others) dismissing the claim of appellant for release of full pension.

2. Brief background of the case as is reflected from the pleadings set out that appellant was working as Constable Driver in U.P. Police Department. In the year 2013 when appellant was posted as Constable Driver at District Chandauli, while appellant was driving a prison van, due to negligence of police, one accused person namely Sunil Yadav escaped from the police custody and in reference of said incident, FIR has been lodged in Case Crime No. 827 of 2013, under Sections 222 and 224 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi. This much is also clear that in the said criminal case, after investigation has been carried out, charge-sheet has been filed, trial in question is stated to be still pending and appellant has attained the age of superannuation. Thereafter, order dated 7.4.2014 has been passed whereby provisional pension has been accorded in consonance with Government Order dated 28.10.1980 on the ground that criminal case is pending in Case Crime No. 827 of 2013, under Sections 222 and 224 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi.

3. Sri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant contended with vehemence that learned Single Judge has erred in law in rejecting claim of appellant whereas criminal case has no relevance with the payment that is to be ensured to the appellant, and at no point of time, any pecuniary loss has been caused by the appellant and accordingly special appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Claim has been resisted by learned Standing Counsel by contending that here appellant has been charge-sheeted, criminal trial has been on going and once criminal charge is in reference of discharge of his duty, rightful decision has been taken in accordance with the provision of Civil Service Regulation 351-A read with Regulation 919-A(3) as well as Government Order dated 28.10.1980.

5. In order to appreciate respective arguments this Court proceeds to examine the Government Order dated 28.10.1980 as well as Government Order dated 28.7.1989. Relevant extract of the aforesaid Government Orders is being extracted below:

Government Order 28.10.1980

^^la[;k&3&1679@nl&80&909&79

izs"kd]

Jh ckyd`”.k prqosZnh

fo'ks"k lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok es]

leLr foHkkxk/;{k ,oa izeq[k dk;kZy;kè;{k]

mRrj izns'kA

y[kuÅ fnukad 28 vDVwcj] 1980

fo"k;%& lsok fuo`Rr ljdkjh lsodksa] ftuds fo:) oSHkkfxd U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukfèkdj.k lrdZrk tkap py jgh gS] dks vufUre isa'ku dk HkqxrkuA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k; ij eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd jkT; ljdkj ds isa'ku laca/kh orZeku fu;eksa esa vHkh rd bl vk'k; dk dksbZ fof'k"V izko/kku ugha gS fd lsok fuo`fRr ds fnukad dks vFkok lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds mijkUr ;fn dksbZ deZpkjh ds fo:) dksbZ foHkkxh; U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukf/kdj.k@lrdZrk tkap tkjh gks vFkok tkjh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gks rks D;k mls isa'ku rFkk vU; uSo`fRrd ykHkns; gksaxs ;k ughaA mDr fLFkfr esa lkekU;r% viuk;s x;s n`f"Vdks.k vkSj iz;qDr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj tc rd ml dk;Zokgh vFkok tkap dk ifj.kke izkIr u gks tk; rc rd lacaf/kr lsod dks dksbZ isa'ku o xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku ugh fd;k tkrk gSA mDRk dk;Zokfg;ksa vkSj tkap ds iwjh gksus vkSj fQj vko';d vkSipkfjdrk;sa iwjh dj vfUre fu.kZ; ysus esa vf/kd le; Hkh yx ldrk gS vkSj ml n'kk esa lacaf/kr lsok fuo`Rr deZpkjh o”kksZ rd lsok uSo`fRrd ykHkksa ls oafpr jgrk gS ftlls mls dkQh vkfFkZd dfBukbZ dk lkeuk djuk iM+ ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr dbZ ekeyksa esa dk;Zokgh ;k tkap ds ifj.kke Lo:i deZpkjh funksZ”k ik;k tk ldrk gSA bl izlax esa vkidk /;ku 'kk0 vk0 la0 lk&3&2085@nl& 907@76] fnukad 13&12&1977 dh vksj Hkh vkdf"kZr djuk gS ftlesa ,sls ekeys esa] ftuesa isa'ku xzsP;qVh dh Lohd`fr vkSj dkxtkr rS;kj djus dh dk;Zokgh fu/kkZfjr le; esa iwjh u gks lds] vufUre isa'ku o vkuqrksf”kd fn;s tkus ds vkn