Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9443 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16119 of 2024 Petitioner :- Pradip Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Singh,Utkarsh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus certiorari calling for the records and quashing the order impugned dated 06.09.2024 passed by respondent no. 2- Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Board of High School & Intermediate Education, Prayagraj as it proceeds to sanction only provisional pension to the petitioner (retired on 31.10.2023) and withholds all the other retiral benefits (Annexure No. 6 at Page No. 25 to the writ petition)." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working on the post of Senior Administrative Officer in the office of respondent no. 2- Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Board of High School & Intermediate Education, Prayagraj and superannuated from service on 31.10.2023. After his retirement, petitioner was not paid any retiral dues, therefore, he has filed Writ-A No. 448 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2024 with direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of petitioner within 30 days. Thereafter, vide impugned order, claim of petitioner for pension and other retiral dues have been rejected and only order has been passed to grant provisional pension, which petitioner has challenged in the present petition. He firmly submitted that till date, petitioner has not been served any charge sheet, therefore, as per settled provisions of law, department proceedings cannot be initiated against him. He next submitted that one other colleague namely Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari whose name find place in the impugned order, was retired from service on 31.07.2018. Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari was also granted provisional pension, but all other retiral benefits have not been given to him, therefore, he has approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 26040 of 2018. In that matter also, departmental proceeding was not initiated prior to his retirement, therefore, this Court vide order dated 02.04.2019 has allowed the petition with the finding that prior to sanction of Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, no inquiry proceeding can be initiated against a retired employee. Court has further directed the respondent-authorities to compute the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and release the same forthwith. The said order has been complied with and Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari has also been paid regular pension as well as all other retiral dues. He lastly submitted that present case is identical to the case of Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the relief extended to Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari. 4. Earlier case was heard on 10.01.2025 and Court has passed following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The case was heard on 05.12.2024 and the Court has passed the following order: "1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2023, but instead of granting full retiral benefits, only the provisional pension has been granted to the petitioner. However, neither any regular departmental enquiry is pending nor any FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is entitled for full retiral benefits. 3. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the Case of Pramod Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others (Writ-A No. 26040 of 2018), decided on 02.04.2019. 4. List on 17.12.2024, as fresh." 3. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 05.12.2024 learned standing counsel has produced instruction dated 09.01.2025, which is taken on record. 4. Based upon instruction he submitted that departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, but he could not demonstrate before the Court about the date of service of charge sheet. 5. Under settled provision of law, a departmental proceeding shall be treated to be initiated only from the date of service of charge sheet. 6. Under such facts of the case standing counsel is granted a week's time to produce a copy of the charge sheet and FIR, if any, lodged against the petitioner. 7. Put up as fresh on 21.01.2025 amongst top 10 cases." 5. Pursuant to the order dated 10.01.2025, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced instruction dated 18.01.2025, which is taken on record. In the instruction, it is admitted that till date, no charge sheet has been served to the petitioner. 6. I have considered submissions advanced by counsels for parties and perused the records as well as judgments. 7. There is no dispute on this point that till date, petitioner has not been served charge sheet as in the matter of Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari, therefore, at this stage, without prior sanction of Regulation 351-A, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against him. 8. I have also perused the judgment passed in the matter of Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari. Facts of the case are absolutely identical to the facts of this petition, therefore, petitioner is entitled for same reliefs. 9. Under such facts of the case as well as in the light of order dated 02.04.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 26040 of 2018, impugned order is hereby quashed. 10. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Respondent-authorities are directed to pay regular pension and all other retiral dues to the petitioner, maximum within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Sartaj Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad