Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25281 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4036 of 2022 Petitioner :- Jitendra Nath Shukla Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru Its Chairman And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Saran Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Aradhyanayan Tiwari assisted by Mrs. Ayushi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief : "A. writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure 2); B. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 28.06.2021, as approved by the disciplinary authority ex-post facto and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom (Annexure 3); C. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the impugned departmental order dated 07.07.2021 bearing No. 401 / वव.वव.ममं (च)' (Annexure 4); D. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to release post - retirement benefits of the Petitioner along with interest in accordance with law, within a stipulated time period, as directed by this Court." 3. At the very outset Sri Tiwari has informed that the petitioner has retired on 30.6.2021, therefore, the first prayer has lost its efficacy. He has further submitted that the impugned charge- sheet has not been approved by the disciplinary authority, therefore, the charge-sheet is nullity in the eyes of law. 4. On that Sri Saran has stated that without addressing on the point of legality of the charge-sheet the competent authority has dropped the departmental proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet, therefore, for all practical purposes the prayer no. B has also lost its efficacy. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission prayer no. C has lost its efficacy. So far as prayer no. D is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the gratuity of the petitioner may not be withheld in any circumstances and since the same has not been paid to the petitioner till date, therefore, appropriate direction may be issued to pay the gratuity of the petitioner. On that Sri Saran has stated that though the gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner but in view of the circular of the department dated 21.6.1991 (Annexure-SCA-2) adopting the government order dated 28.7.1989 the gratuity of a retired employee may not be withheld even pending in vigilance inquiry, therefore, as per Sri Saran the appropriate decision would be taken in favour of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid Circular dated 21.6.1991. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since this fact is undisputed that the gratuity of the petitioner may not be withheld even if any vigilance inquiry is pending consideration then the competent authority is directed to make payment of gratuity to the petitioner with expedition preferably within the period of one month. 7. Since there is statutory prescription under the relevant rules to the effect that if the payment of gratuity is not given to the retired employee within a month, he would be entitled for the interest @ 12%, therefore, while making payment of gratuity to the petitioner he shall be paid admissible interest within aforesaid stipulated time. 8. In view of the aforesaid terms the writ petition is allowed. 9. No order as to costs. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench