HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15142 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shir Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Lekhpal in the year 1993 and he superannuated on 30.06.2025. However, in relation to certain allegation, a first information report was lodged on 17.01.2018 by a Vigilance Inspector, Meerut against 44 guardians and 40 public servants of Revenue Department including the writ petitioner being Case Crime No. 011 of 2018, Police Station Delhi Gate, District- Meerut under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that mere pendency of the said criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to dis-entitle the writ petitioner of the pensionery benefits particularly, when though charge sheet has been submitted against the writ petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also seeks reliance upon a single Bench judgement in Writ - A No.14882 of 2020 (Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. State of UP) decided on 08.12.2022 carried a Special Appeal Defective No. 841 of 2023(State of UP and 5 others vs. Vinod Kumar Jain) wherein the intra-Court appeal came to be rejected on 08.01.2024. Submission is that till date there is nothing on record to show that any pecuniary loss has been sustained by State Government. He submits that already the writ petitioner's claim has not been considered till date. 5. Shri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rakesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) that the issue with the writ petitioner seeks to raise needs determination at the first instance by the Collector/ District Magistrate, Meerut, who would look into the aforesaid aspect of the matter and proceed to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner. 6. Having heard these submissions so made across the Bar and also perusing the record and taking into overall facts and situation, this Court finds that there is no order passed at the end of the respondent. Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition as well as certified copy of the order including the copy of the first information report and the status at the stage of the criminal proceeding disclosing specifically the fact whether any charge sheet has been submitted or not and on the said motion, the second respondent shall decide the claim of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 7. With the said observations, the writ petitions stands disposed of. October 15, 2025 Gurpreet Singh WRIA No. 15142 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad