Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21742 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4163 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shyam Deo Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise 4 Th Floor Bapu Bhawan And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard Sri Prashant Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give provisional pension to the petitioner which is not paid to him since October, 2024 along with an interest of 18% on the arrears of provisional pension. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent no. 2 to conclude the departmental proceeding initiated on 25.04.2007 in the light of the final judgement/order passed in complaint case no. 570 of 2006 by learned trial court dated 04.11.2023, within a reasonable time period as this hon'ble court may deem fit. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents to give all the retiral benefits and dues to the petitioner which are pending i.e.. gratuity, leave encashment, etc. with an interest of 18% from the date of retirement of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner retired from the post of Excise Inspector on 30.09.2023. After his retirement, he was getting provisional pension but from the month of October, 2024, he has not received any pension. 4. So far as the prayer No.2 is concerned, it is not disputed that disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year 2007 are still pending however, the only reason assigned by learned Standing Counsel for pendency of the disciplinary proceedings is that the petitioner has not appeared before the Enquiry Officer although he was called thrice however, this reason cannot justify the action of respondents keeping disciplinary proceedings pending for a period of more than seventeen years. 5. Having considered the aforesaid contention, I am of the considered opinion that payment of provisional pension may not be stopped in any condition as such payment is not bounty but a legal right of an employee, which may not be infringed in any circumstances. The competent authority must take into account the plight of the employee that he and his family may not survive in absence of payment of pension, therefore, not making payment for substantial period is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. 7. The respondent No.1 is directed to make payment of arrears of provisional pension to the petitioner w.e.f. October, 2024 till date, with expedition, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the delayed payment. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 is also directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid his provisional pension as and when the same falls due. 8. However, this Court taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 7 sub-clause (x) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which takes care of the contingency where the employee does not turn up to participate in the inquiry, deems it just and proper to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.2 to expedite and conclude the inquiry preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. It is needless to say that the inquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules, 1999 (supra). 10. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench