# Ajay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 470
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-30
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5280 of 2015
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52125
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Civil Service Regulations -
Reg. 351 - Pension - During service period,
the
petitioner
was
sentenced
for
committing Murder, against which Criminal
Appeal and SLP were also dismissed - No
departmental enquiry was conducted -
Effect - Held, St. Government reserves the
'right of withholding or withdrawing a
pension or any part of it, if the pensioner
be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of
grave misconduct - The provision of
Regulation 351 of the Civil Services
Regulations cannot be ignored or make it
inoperative or redundant only on the
ground that no departmental enquiry was
contemplated against the petitioner. (Para
16 and 19)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4& ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh;
la[;k &bZ&11@1499@nl&2014] fnukad 26 fnlEcj
2014 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls fuxZr fd, tk jgs gSA

Hkonh;]

1⁄4ftrsUnz dqekj1⁄2

izeq[k lfpo""

17. From perusal of the order 29th
March 2022, there is no such provision of
benefit of academic session to the petitioner
and law is very clear on this point started
from the judgement and order in case of
Nazir Ahmad Vs King-Emperor, 1936
SEC OnLine PC 41, rendered by the Privy
Council, wherein, it has been held that
'where a power is given to do a certain thing
in a certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all' and the other methods
of performance are necessarily forbidden.'

18. This court has also considered the
judgement and order rendered in the case of
Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir
Prasad and Others, reported in (1999) 8
SCC 266, wherein, the following principle
is laid down:-

"17.......It is a well-settled salutary
principle that if a statute provides for a thing
to be done in a particular manner, then it has
to be done in that manner and in no other
manner. (See with advantage: Nazir Ahmad
v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 lA 372 : AIR
1936 PC 253 (lI)] , Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh
v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR
1098] , State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR
1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] .) An
election petition under the rules could only
have been presented in the open court up to
16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of
the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule
6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as
the case may be to save the period of
limitation. That, however, was not done......"

19. Further, in case of Cherukuri
Mani Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of
Andra Pradesh and Ors, (2015) 13 SCC
722, it has been held by the Apex Court that
'where the law prescribed a thing to be done
in a particular manner, following a particular
procedure, it shall be done in the same
manner following the provisions of law,
without deviating from the prescribed
procedure'.

20. In the order dated 29th March
2022, the futher benefit of the 'academic
session' is not granted for the State
Awardees Teachers, who are given the
extension of service, up till age of 65 years,
and therefore, in absence of any provision
for grant of benefit of academic session, the
same cannot be allowed to the petitioner.

21. In view of the abovesaid
submissions and discussions, the writ
petition lacks merit, hence is dismissed.

22. No order as to cost.

23. Consigned to record.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 5280 of 2015

Ajay Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pushp Raj Singh, Gaurav Upadhyay, Manish
Misra
5 All. Ajay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Civil Service Regulations -
Reg. 351 - Pension - During service period,
the
petitioner
was
sentenced
for
committing Murder, against which Criminal
Appeal and SLP were also dismissed - No
departmental enquiry was conducted -
Effect - Held, St. Government reserves the
'right of withholding or withdrawing a
pension or any part of it, if the pensioner
be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of
grave misconduct - The provision of
Regulation 351 of the Civil Services
Regulations cannot be ignored or make it
inoperative or redundant only on the
ground that no departmental enquiry was
contemplated against the petitioner. (Para
16 and 19)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Special Appeal No. 40 of 2017; Shiv Gopal &
ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 08-05-2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri
Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State and perused
the material placed on records.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated 0206-2015 passed by the Deputy Director of
Education,Lucknow Region, Lucknow and
the order dated 13-08-2015 passed by the
opposite party no. 1.

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher C.T. Grade on 01-08-1972, and
subsequently, he was treated as Assistant
Teacher in 2 L.T. Grade in Narvadeshwar
Inter
College,
Rambagh,
Raebareli(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'Institution'). The institution is recognized
by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board
and imparts education upto Intermediate
Classes and the provisions of Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Act, 1921'), U.P. Secondary Education
Service Selection Board Act, 1982(U.P. Act
No. 5 of 1982) as well as the U.P. High
School and Intermediate College(Payment
of
Salaries
to
Teachers
and
other
Employees) Act, 1971, are applicable on the
teaching and non teaching staffs of the
institution. Further submitted that the work
and conduct of the petitioner was always
above the board, but, unfortunately, in the
year, 1977, he was falsely implicated in a
murder case, wherein the petitioner was
sentenced for life imprisonment vide
Judgment and order dated 12-05- 1981,
whereafter, an appeal was preferred by the
petitioner and he was released on bail.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner
joined
the
institution and kept on working and was
getting salary, regularly. He next submits
that the petitioner was sent to jail at the time,
when the first information report was lodged
and later on, when he was punished and he
communicated it to the institution,but, no
departmental enquiry was contemplated
against him, however, he was being paid
salary, except apart the period he remained
in jail.

4. Again submitted that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was decided and
the punishment was reduced and he was
punished under section 304(ii) of 3 I.P.C.
and was sentenced for 7 years of
imprisonment and sent to jail, whereafter,
the petitioner preferred Special Leave
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
which was also dismissed and subsequently,
the review petition and curative petition
were also dismissed. He further submits that
after serving the punishment, the petitioner
was released from jail on 03-01-2010,
though in between, he had attained the age
of superannuation on 30-06-2009, but, the
fact remains that since 01-10-2004 uptil the
date of his retirement, the petitioner was not
paid his salary and therefore, after release
from the jail, the petitioner moved an
application for release of his post retiral
benefits, which were due to be paid to him,
but, once, after completing the pension
papers, sent to the office of Deputy Director
of Education, Lucknow Region, Lucknow,
the Deputy Director of Education sought the
instructions from the Finance Controller of
the office of the Director Secondary
Education, vide letters dated 05-05-2010
and 23-02-2011, but, the same remains
unresponded and therefore, the petitioner
preferred
Writ
Petition
bearing
no.
1507(S/S) of 2013, wherein an order was
passed on 15-03-2013.

5. The relevant portion of the order is
quoted hereinunder :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the
opposite parties. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits retiral dues of the
petitioner has not been paid, though the
petitioner retired on 30.6.2009. He further
states that necessary papers have already
been forwarded to the authority concerned,
but the post retiral 4 dues of the petitioner
has not been paid up till now. The petitioner
has also made a representation in this
regard. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
writ petition is disposed of
with the direction that the authority
concerned shall consider and dispose of the
aforesaid representation of the petitioner
dated 22.1.2013, as contained in Annexure
no.5 to the writ
petition, in accordance with law within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order."

6. He added that in compliance of the
order dated 15- 03-2013, the order dated 0206-2015 was passed, whereby the claim of
the petitioner for payment of pension has
been rejected and thereafter, the petitioner
filed a representation/appeal before the
opposite
party
no.
1,
who
without
application of mind, passed the order on 1308-2015 and upheld the order passed by the
Deputy Director of Education.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that the petitioner has falsely been
implicated in the criminal case and he was
not involved in committing any offence. He
next submits that as and when the petitioner
was sent to jail, he informed the department,
but, no departmental enquiry has ever been
contemplated against him and in criminal
appeal, the punishment is reduced upto 7
years and after serving the period of 7 years
of imprisonment, the petitioner was released
from jail and he has been paid all the post
retiral dues. Therefore, submission is that
the petitioner is also entitled for the
pensionary benefits.

8. Further contention is that since there
is no criminal case pending against the
petitioner and therefore,under Regulation
351 of the Civil Services Regulations, the
petitioner is entitled for payment of the
pensionary benefits. Next submits that the
Deputy Director of 5 Education and the
State Government have passed the orders in
an arbitrary manner and without adhering to
the provisions of Civil Services Regulations
as neither any departmental enquiry nor any
5 All. Ajay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
criminal case is pending against the
petitioner. Thus, submission is that the
orders dated 02-06-2015 and 13-08-2015
may be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the contentions aforesaid and
submitted that initially, when the first
information
report
was
lodged,
the
petitioner was sent to jail and thereafter,
when he was convicted, he was again sent to
jail and finally, the conviction is upheld by
the Apex Court. He submits that so far as the
provisions of Regulation 351 of the Civil
Services Regulations are concerned, that
speaks about the implied condition of future
good conduct for ever grant of pension and
since the petitioner is convicted and
therefore, as per the abovesaid provisions,
he is not entitled for pension.

10. Adding his arguments,he submits
that in compliance of the order dated 15-032013 passed by this court, the claim of the
petitioner with respect to payment of
pension has thoroughly been considered and
decided by the Deputy Director of
Education and once the representation is
preferred against the same, the State
Government has also passed an order on 13-
08-2015 and has rightly turned down the
claim of the petitioner. Thus, submission is
that the petitioner is not entitled for any
relief. 6

11. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and after perusal of the material
placed on record, it transpires that the
petitioner was initially appointed on the post
of Assistant Teacher,whereafter, the first
information report was lodged against him,
for committing murder and he was punished.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal
before this court, which was also dismissed
on 06-07-2004 and the Special Leave
Petition was preferred before the Hon'ble
Apex Court and that too, was dismissed on
27-09-2004 and the petitioner after serving
the 7 years of sentence, was released from
jail and admittedly, he is a convicted person.

12. After the petitioner was released
from jail, serving the sentence, raised claim
for payment of pension and thereafter, filed
a writ petition, wherein a direction is given
for taking a decision on the representation of
the petitioner and ultimately, the decision
was taken by the Deputy Director of
Education on 02-06-2015, rejecting the
claim of the petitioner.

13. When this court examines the
matter in facts and law, it emerges that so far
as the claim of the petitioner is concerned,
the same is covered with the provisions of
Regulation 351 of the Civil Service
Regulations,
which
provides
implied
condition for grant of pension.

14. Provision of Regulation 351 of the
Civil Services Regulations is extracted as
follows :-

 "351. Future good conduct is an
implied condition of ever grant of a pension.
The State Government reserve to themselves
the right of withholding or withdrawing a
pension or any part of it, if the pensioner be
convicted of serious crime or be guilty of
grave misconduct. The decision of the State
Government on any question of withholding
or withdrawing the whole or any part of
pension under this regulation shall be final
and conclusive."

15. A bare reading of the abovesaid
provision is evident that the same confers
power upon the State Government for
withholding or withdrawing pension or any
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
part of it, if a person claiming pension is
convicted of 'serious crime' or guilty of
'grave misconduct', meaning thereby, that if
a criminal case or disciplinary proceeding is
pending, it would not be sufficient to
withhold or withdraw the pension, unless
such person is convicted or hold the guilty
of grave misconduct. Infact, the expression
'serious crime' indicates towards the
offences, which are having the dangerous
possible. The 'serious offences' have been
defined under section 2(54) of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015, which is extracted as
follows :-

"Serious offences" includes the
offences for which the punishment under the
Indian Penal Code or any other law for the
time being in force, is imprisonment between
three to seven years."

16. The aforesaid provision is very
clear in it's term as the same provides that
the State Government reserves the 'right of
withholding or withdrawing a pension or
any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted
of serious crime or be guilty of grave
misconduct.

17. This court is also aware of the law
laid down in the case of Shiv Gopal and
Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others and
other connected matters (Special Appeal
No. 40 of 2017 decided on 08-052019.Paragraph nos. 31,32 & 36 of the said
Judgment are quoted hereinunder:-

"31. The decision of the above
Division Bench as contained in the later part
is based upon equitable principle and is not
the law that has been laid down. The
decision on equity is confined to the fact
situation of that case. Moreover, equity has
no place where the provisions of law are
express.

32. The decision in the case of Bal
Krishna Tiwari39 has been rendered simply
following the equitable principle of Faini
Singh (Supra) in context with the fact
situation of the said case wherein the
government servant had retired 10 yeas ago
but was not getting his gratuity as a case
was pending against him. The said decision
also does not lay down any binding
precedent.

36. The decision dated 5.10.2013
in Writ No. 12574 of 2013 (Narendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P., and others) is also of no
consequence as it again fails to take into
consideration the specific provision of
Regulation
919-A
with
regard
to
withholding of gratuity during the pendency
of the judicial proceedings."

18. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a
convicted person and therefore the Deputy
Director of Education as well as the State
Government have rightly passed the orders
on
02-06-2015
and
13-08-2015,
respectively while rejecting the claim/prayer
of the petitioner for grant of pension.

19. Thus, the provision of Regulation
351 of the Civil Services Regulations cannot
be ignored or make it inoperative or
redundant only on the ground that no
departmental enquiry was contemplated
against the petitioner as the provision speaks
and includes not only the past but, of future
good conduct, as well and since, it is
undisputed fact that the petitioner is a
convicted person, therefore, the provision of
Regulation 351 of the Civil Services
Regulations, shall apply.

20. Resultantly, the petitioner is not
entitled for pension.

21. Consequently, the writ petition
lacks merits and hence, is dismissed.
5 All. Shailendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 475
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 6879 of 2012

Shailendra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
G.C. Verma, Sharad Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anurag Kumar Singh, P.C. Chauhan,
Pradeep Kumar Singh Bisen

A. Service Law - UP Recognised Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment of Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group D Posts), Rules
1984 - Rule 14 - Selection - Post of Clerk
- Constitution of three members Selection
Committee - Third member i.e. Specialist
was appointed by two other members of
the Selection Committee, not by the
Committee of Management - Effect - Held,
appointment of third member, made by the
remaining two members, but not by
Committee, vitiates the constitution of the
selection committee. (Para 30 and 31)

B. Service Law - UP Recognised Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment of Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group D Posts), Rules
1984 - Rule 15(5)(iii) - Appointment -
Post of Clerk - Appointment was made
without waiting one month period - Effect
- Held, Rule 15(5)(iii) provides that if, the
DBEO does not communicate his decision
on the due intimation by the Committee of
Management, within one month form the
date of receipt of the papers under clause
4, he shall be deemed to have accorded
approval to the recommendations made by
the selection committee - High Court held
the appointment made not in-consonance
with Rules 15(5)(iii). (Para 30 and 31)

C. Service Law - Upgradation of the
institution from Junior High School to High
School/Intermediate College - Whether
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
is
applicable or Rules of 1984 - Held, the
institution in question is covered with the
provisions of the Act, 1921 - Manju
Awasthi's case relied upon - Basic Siksha
Adhikari
cannot
exercise
any
administrative control over the institution,
except to the extent of payment of salary.
(Para 32 and 33)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dhirendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of UP & ors.;
2019 (7) ADJ 250 (LB)

2. Special Appeal No. 667 of 2014; St. of UP
through Principal Secretary Vs Pravin Kumar
Mishra & anr. decided on 07.03.2018

3. Ramesh Singh Vs St. of U.P.; (2020) 5 SCC 677

4. Manju Awasthi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
Manu/UP/3739/2012

5.St. of U.P. & ors.Vs District Judge, Varanasi &
ors.; 1981 SCC OnLine All 279

6. Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Gupta Vs The Joint Director
of Education, Kanpur & ors.; (2005 SCC OnLine
All 1183)

7. Standard Intermediate College Mau-Aima &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (MANU/UP/2108/2019)

8. Rakesh Chandra Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2001 (1) UPLBEC 131

9. Sharda Prasad Yadav & ors.Vs District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria & ors.; 2002 (49)
ALR 800