Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar, J.—The petitioner has approached to this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 2.9.2014 issued by the respondent No. 5 by which it has been provided that the petitioner would be continued to be paid provisional pension in accordance with the Government order dated 28.7.1989 and 28.10.1980 and the proposal for pension would be made available after disposal of the prosecution by the Hon’ble Court.

2. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to respondents to release forthwith the regular Pension and Gratuity with simple interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of retirement of the petitioner upto the date of actual payment.

3. The facts in brief for adjudication of the present controversy are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Platoon Commander in the U.P. Provincial, Armed Constabulary on 3.9.1980 (hereinafter referred as the “PAC” for the sake of brevity). After completion of training, the petitioner was given posting in 32nd Battalion PAC, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow. Subsequently on 21.9.1987 the petitioner was promoted as Company Commander. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 5.9.2001.

4. On attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner got superannuated from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, while being posted as Assistant Commandant in 35th Battalion PAC, Mahanagar, Lucknow on 31.12.2014.

5. An FIR was lodged on 10.6.2011 when the petitioner was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Nighasan, District-Khiri, bearing Case Crime No. 706/2011 under Section-376, 302, 201 I.P.C. at Police Station Nighasan, District Khiri against unknown persons. In the aforesaid matter a report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the form of Charge-sheet was filed by the CBCID against Constable Ateeq Ahmad, Constable Shiv Kumar and Constable Umashaker in the Competent Court. In the aforesaid matter the allegations as contended in charge-sheet, submitted to Competent Court, are that aforesaid constables committed rape with a minor girl and murdered her.

6. Subsequently, on the basis of further investigation conducted by CBI and report bearing Report No. 01/2013, SC-11/CBI/New Delhi supplementary report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Court of Special Magistrate for CBI Cases, Lucknow, on 29.3.2013.

7. The petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs. 20,92,694.00 of his GPF and Rs. 3,53,646.00 of Leave Enchashment, while the gratuity of petitioner has been withheld and only interim pension is being paid to the petitioner.

8. Since the petitioner has not been paid his retiral dues, so he has approached to this Court challenging the order dated 2nd September, 2014 passed by Director Finance, U.P. Police Head Office, Allahabad and for release of his gratuity and regular pension with simple interest.

9. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the records.

10. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gratuity can be with-held only if it is covered under any of the exceptions given under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Grartuity Act, 1972. As such, the gratuity of the petitioner cannot be with-held as instant case does not come under any of the exceptions given under the said Section. He further submitted that allegations against the petitioner are of Section 201 I.P.C. only and there is no allegation of loss to the State as he has not caused any pecuniary loss to the State during his service period. No other disciplinary or any sort of proceeding is pending against the petitioner and mere pendency of any judicial proceeding cannot be a ground to exercise the powers under Article 351AA read with Regulation 919A for withholding the retiral dues. Further he submitted that in any case the regular pension and g