HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 20349 of 2024 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayer:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents concerned for providing the retiral benefit and salary to the petitioner immediate in the interest of justice. 2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector in July, 1968 and discharging his duties till the time of his termination,i.e., on 31.12.1976. During the service of the petitioner, an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner on 03.02.1975 as Case Crime No.66 of 1975 under Section 409 I.P.C. at Police Station Dakshin (South) District Firozabad. Pursuant to the aforesaid the petitioner was suspended on 03.09.1975 and after departmental inquiry, he was terminated on 31.12.1976. 3. Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel stated that the correct date of termination is 30.12.1976. In the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgement and order dated 04.01.2024. It is stated in paragraph 17 of the affidavit that in case, the petitioner had not been terminated on 30.12.1976, he would be retired in January, 2001. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Tiwari, Phool Chandra Saroj Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mathura Prasad Maurya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after his acquittal, a letter has been written by the petitioner to the Director of Agriculture Lucknow on 21.10.2024 to make payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner. Since no decision has been taken, hence the present petition has been filed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it stated that while discharging the duties on the post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector, the petitioner found guilty for committing financial irregularities and embezzlement, therefore, his services has been terminated and order of recovery has been passed. 6. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the order of termination has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time before any forum or competent court of law till date, therefore the same has attained finality and even though copy of the order of termination has also not challenged in the present petition and copy of the same has also not been appended with the petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that once the order of termination dated 30.12.1976 has attained finality, no relief as sought by the petitioner has been granted to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted and the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026 saqlain WRIA No. 20349 of 2024 2 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad