Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9827 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1266 of 2018 Petitioner :- Deshraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Home Civil Sectt.Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Singh,Kamini Singh,Krishna Kumar Singh,Nishant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1976 and retired from service on 31.07.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. It has been submitted that on the basis of some criminal case lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No.148 of 1987, under Sections 492, 339 and 384 IPC which was registered in Police Station – Dhauhrara, District – Lakhimpurkheri. Investigation was conducted and no evidence could be found which could link the petitioner with the said offence and accordingly, a final report was submitted in the court competent jurisdiction. Merely because of the fact that the final report has been filed in the court of competent jurisdiction. The respondents were of the view that the petitioner is facing criminal trial and hence in exercise of power under Article 919-A of the Financial Handbook, only provisional pension has been paid to the petitioner and his full pension has not been paid. The petitioner has submitted that after filing of the final report in the court, the petitioner has not either received summons and he has tried to found out from the said court but could not trace any criminal case which is being prosecuted against him. And ccordingly, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, in paragraph nos. 4 and 11, it has been stated that the final report has been submitted in the court concerned but there is no information as to whether the same has been accepted or not and the burden has been shifted to the petitioner to show that no criminal case is pending against him. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that there is no evidence that any criminal case is pending against the petitioner and it is only during pendency of criminal proceedings, the pension can be withheld. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is noticed that only merely because of a FIR lodged against the petitioner in 1987 it seems that the final report was submitted in the court on 15.11.1987. Merely because the concerned file is not being traced either by the petitioner or by the respondents, the respondents are under believe that the petitioner is facing criminal trial in the court of competent jurisdiction. This Court is of the considered view that the pension is valuable right of a government servant which is payable on superannuation and the same can be withheld only according to the rules Clause 351A and Clause 919-A of the Financial Handbook which provides that in case the government servant is facing any judicial proceedings, the State has power to withhold the payment of pension. Accordingly, there has to be clear and cogent evidence regarding pendency of judicial proceedings against the government servant before provisions of Clause 351A and Clause 919-A of the Financial Handbook can be invoked. It is noticed that withholding of the pension is a very extreme and sever measure upon the government servant who has superannuated after rendering nearly three decades of service. 7. From the material available on record, it is clear that the final report was filed some time in 1987 and unless there was a protest petition and the application was opposed by the complainant in usual course after perusing the final report, the court would have passed appropriate orders and might have accepted the same. 8. In any view of the matter, neither the petitioner nor the State could gather any information with regard to the fate of the final report. Accordingly, even according to the respondents there is no evidence in regard to pendency of the judicial proceeding against the petitioner and hence, we do not find any cogent reason for withholding of the pension. Apart from the above, it has been submitted that even on the hypothesis and considering the fact that the allegation may be correct then also the dispute was pertaining to house tracepass which was a private dispute and it can stately be stated that no loss could have been caused to the exchequer even when the event of conviction of the petitioner and therefore, there would not have been any occasion for the respondents to withhold any amount from the pension payable to the petitioner. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we find that the action of the respondents withholding the pension is clearly illegal and arbitrary and in absence of any material indicating that any judicial proceedings are pending against a government servant, they could not have proceeded to invoke the provisions of Clause 351A and Clause 919-A of the Financial Handbook to withhold the pension, accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the full pension and others service dues, including post retiral dues to which he is entitled from the date of his superannuation. Let the said exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the competent authority. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 14.2.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench