IMPORTANT POINT
Regulation 351 (A) of C.S.R prohibits action against a pensioner for events that took place more than four years before retirement, and mandates timely release of post retiral benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar, J.

1. Heard.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 and 3 as well as Shri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, the present writ petition is finally adjudicated at the admission stage itself.

3. Present writ petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondents to release the post retiral benefits of the petitioner i.e. an amount of Rs. 20 lacs towards Grautity, Rs. 33 lacs approximately towards commutation of Pension and further pay regular pension to the petitioner with interest in view of paragraphs nos. 49, 50 and 51 of the writ petition as no order has been passed either by the Governor or the State Government.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation had retired from the post of Director (Agriculture) on 31.10.2019 but in place of making payment of post retiral dues to the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2021 under Rule 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules, 1999) for minor punishment. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition No. 23536 (S/S) of 2020 which was allowed in part by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 02.12.2020 and quashed the notice under challenge. The relevant extract of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder:-

"For these reasons the issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner for imposition of a penalty under Rule 10(2) of the Rules 1999 is apparently beyond the scope of the Rules and the jurisdiction vested thereunder with the opposite parties. The appropriate course, if at all i.e. if the conditions mentioned in Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations were satisfied was to proceed against the petitioner under the said provision in accordance with law, however, even in this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the allegations pertain to an incident which took place more than four years earlier and, therefore, any action under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations stands excluded by the provisions/prohibitions contained therein as no chargesheet was or has been issued to the petitioner within the said period of four years nor was he ever under suspension, nevertheless, it is for the State Government to see as to whether the contingencies mentioned in Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations are satisfied for any action against the petitioner or not, but so far as the impugned notice is concerned, same is clearly unsustainable and liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed subject, however, to the observations made hereinabove.

Considering the fact that only provisional pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner and has been granted which orders are also under challenge, instead of interfering with the same at this stage and quashing the same, it would be appropriate if the State Government examines the matter as to whether the petitioner is amenable to any action under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations in the facts of the case or not, but, within a period of six weeks from the date an e-copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this High Court is submitted before the opposite party no. 1.

The consequences as to entitlement of post-retirement dues to the petitioner shall depend upon the same, meaning thereby, if the State Government comes to the conclusion that the mandatory prerequisites mentioned in Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations are not satisfied and no action can be taken against the petitioner under the same, then the petitioner shall be entitled to all the post-retirement dues otherwise admissible as per law, which shall be paid to him within 3 months therefrom. However, if the State Government finds that contingen