IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction for a serious crime disqualifies an individual from receiving pension benefits under Regulation 351 of the Civil Services Regulations, which requires future good conduct as a condition for pension eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

(Shree Prakash Singh, J.) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material placed on records.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 02-06-2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Lucknow Region, Lucknow and the order dated 13-08-2015 passed by the opposite party no. 1.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade on 01-08-1972, and subsequently, he was treated as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Narvadeshwar Inter College, Rambagh, Raebareli(hereinafter referred to as ‘Institution’). The institution is recognized by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Board and imparts education upto Intermediate Classes and the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1921’), Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982(Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982) as well as the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate College(Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, are applicable on the teaching and non teaching staffs of the institution. Further submitted that the work and conduct of the petitioner was always above the board, but, unfortunately, in the year, 1977, he was falsely implicated in a murder case, wherein the petitioner was sentenced for life imprisonment vide Judgment and order dated 12-05-1981, whereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and he was released on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the institution and kept on working and was getting salary, regularly. He next submits that the petitioner was sent to jail at the time, when the first information report was lodged and later on, when he was punished and he communicated it to the institution,but, no departmental enquiry was contemplated against him, however, he was being paid salary, except apart the period he remained in jail.

4. Again submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was decided and the punishment was reduced and he was punished under section 304(ii) of I.P.C. and was sentenced for 7 years of imprisonment and sent to jail, whereafter, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was also dismissed and subsequently, the review petition and curative petition were also dismissed. He further submits that after serving the punishment, the petitioner was released from jail on 03-01-2010, though in between, he had attained the age of superannuation on 30-06-2009, but, the fact remains that since 01-10-2004 uptil the date of his retirement, the petitioner was not paid his salary and therefore, after release from the jail, the petitioner moved an application for release of his post retiral benefits, which were due to be paid to him, but, once, after completing the pension papers, sent to the office of Deputy Director of Education, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, the Deputy Director of Education sought the instructions from the Finance Controller of the office of the Director Secondary Education, vide letters dated 05-05-2010 and 23-02-2011, but, the same remains unresponded and therefore, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition bearing no. 1507(S/S) of 2013, wherein an order was passed on 15-03-2013.

5. The relevant portion of the order is quoted hereinunder :-

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits retiral dues of the petitioner has not been paid, though the petitioner retired on 30.6.2009. He further states that necessary papers have already been forwarded to the authority concerned, but the post retiral dues of the petitioner has not been paid up till now. The petitioner has also made a representation in this regard. In the