Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125790 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4747 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dr. Anand Swaroop Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh,S.K. Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri S.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner who has retired from the Principal Medical College attached to the Office of Director General Health, Medical Education and Training U.P. Lucknow has questioned the order passed by the Secretary Government of U.P. dated 29.01.2020 whereby his application for voluntary retirement was rejected. However, since the petitioner has now finally retired it is argued in his behalf that in the absence of any pending disciplinary proceedings and in the absence of vigilance enquiry, the post retirement dues of the petitioner could not be withheld. Accordingly it is submitted by Shri Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner that respondents may be directed to forthwith release the entire post retiremet dues to which he became entitled upon attaining the age of superannuation. 3. In support of his claim and the submission advanced that no disciplinary proceedings is pending against petitioner Shri Srivatava has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Secretary State Government dated 02.09.2016 in which punishment in the nature of minor penalty of adverse entry came to be imposed which he challenged before the State Public Services Tribunal and that claim petition is still pending. 4. Shri Srivastava, then has taken the Court to the report dated Nil of July, 2024 according to which no evidence was found regarding taking of bribe by the petitioner in the recruitment carried out by the petitioenr in the relevant year 2008-2009. Thus, even in respect of the vigilence enquiry into the charges of bribe no evidence was found. Thus, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that in the absence of any departmental proceedings or any charge being proved in the vigilance enquiry, respondent State Government is not justified in withholding post retirement dues. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the counter affidavit sworn by Dr.Keshav Kumar Gupta, the then Director General, Medical Education and Training, in which defence has been taken in respect of the order passed by him rejecting the claim of petitioner for post retirement dues and contended on the basis of avernment made in paragraph 14, that State Government has initiated the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and further vigilance enquiry has been initiated w.e.f 2012 onwards. This paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit has been sworn on the basis of perusal of records but no record has been filed in support of the avernments so made, inasmuch as in reply to the paragraph 38 of the writ petition that refers to the order of minor penalty imposed by the State Government, vide paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that suitable reply has already been given in the preceding paragraph. In the preceding paragraph 20 it has been stated that vide letter dated 21.01.2018 disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner and interestingly in paragraph 38 of the writ petition it has been stated that no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999. Thus, paragraph 20 of the Counter affidavit is equally evasive and vague and no material has been placed before the Court to give at least a prima facie impression that some departmental enquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner under the 1999 rules in addition to the one that resulted in minor penalty under the order of the State Government dated 02.09.2016. 6. Further I find that the letter written to the Special Secretary Vigilance by the Special Secretary government of Uttar Pradesh dated Nil July, 2014 which has been referred to in paragraph 41 of the writ petition, has also remained undenied and a very vague and evasive reply has been given that two member committee was constituted to demonstrate that vigilance enquiry was still underway but again this paragraph which is sworn on the basis of perusal of records and yet no records have been filed in support thereof and this has also been reiterated in paragraph 24 of the rejoinder affidavit that there was no document available to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner upto 17.10.2017. 7. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, it is clear that petitioner's application for voluntary retirement though was rejected but he was made to retire peacefully upon attaining the age of superannuation which is claimed to be 62 years as on the date of filing of this petition and hence, in the absence of departmental enquiry and vigilance enquiry as such the respondents were not justified in withholding the post retirement dues. Mere pendency of claim petition at the State Services Tribunal against the adverse entry will have no bearing and should not in any manner affect the right of petitioner to post retirement dues. 8. In view of the above writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to immediately release the entire post retirement dues of the petitioner within a maximum period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that if the post retirement dues are not cleared within a maximum period of two months as prescribed hereinabove, the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8 percent upon the post retirement dues of the petition w.e.f. from the expiry of period of two months till actual payment is made. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad