# Govind Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 402
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-12
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 9511 of 2022
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govind-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48780
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Recruitment
for
appointment in force - Accusation in
criminal cases -Petitioner was acquitted
in two cases relating to the charge of
robbery on the basis of benefit of doubt
and trial against him in one another case
is pending - Effect - Candidature refused
- Validitty challenged - Held, the acquittal
of petitioner in two criminal cases was not
'honourable' as well as he is facing trial
for the offence which could not be said to
be of trivial in nature - Employer has a
right to consider antecedents of employee
-
Considering
the
antecedents
of
petitioner
the
respondents-authorities
have rightly refused to consider the
candidature of petitioner for a part of
disciplined force - Methu Meda relied
upon. (Para 11 and 12)
B. Service Law - Acquittal in criminal case,
to what extent effect candidature -
Honourable acquittal and Acquittal on the
basis of benefit of doubt distinguished -
Term 'Honourable Acquittal' defined -
When the accused is acquitted after full
consideration of prosecution evidence and
that the prosecution had miserably failed
to prove the charges leveled against the
accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honourably acquitted - S.
Samuthiram's case relied upon. (Para 6)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vigour to the case of a surviving spouse/
widow of the deceased government servant/
employee,
like
the
case
here.
The
petitioner, as already noticed, is living in
penury, though under the Rules, for her
husband's services, she is entitled to
monetary relief in terms of post retiral
benefits. The respondents have resolutely
delayed payment of post retiral benefits due
to the petitioner on account of her
husband's services.

20. In the circumstances, this Court is
of opinion that the respondents must not
only
forthwith
sanction,
release
and
disburse all post retiral benefits due to the
petitioner on account of her deceased
husband's services, but also compensate the
petitioner in costs and by payment of
adequate
interest
on
the
delayed
disbursement of post retiral benefits. It is
made clear that there shall be no deduction
or adjustment out of the post retiral benefits
payable to the petitioner on account of her
husband's services, on ground that her
husband worked for some months beyond
the age of superannuation.

21. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is
issued to the Commissioner, Prayagraj
Division, Prayagraj, the District Magistrate,
Fatehpur and the Nagar Palika Parishad,
Bindki,
Fatehpur
represented
by
its
Executive Officer to ensure between
themselves sanction and disbursement of
the
petitioner's
post
retiral
benefits,
including retirement pension, if any, family
pension, gratuity, general provident fund,
group insurance, besides any other dues
under the rules within six weeks of the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The dues
shall be remitted in such bank account to
the petitioner as she would indicate, upon
the
District
Magistrate,
Fatehpur
ascertaining the relevant particulars from
her or a family member of hers in her
presence, within the aforesaid period of
time. The substantive entitlement of the
petitioner under various heads of postretiral benefits shall carry simple interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
entitlement till payment in the petitioner's
account. The petitioner's family's pension,
current as well as future, shall be paid
regularly. The petitioner shall be entitled to
cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which shall be paid by
the respondent, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Bindki,
District
Fatehpur
separately
through a bank instrument, payable in
account to the petitioner. In the event of
default in payment of costs, upon an
application for the purpose made to the
Registrar General of this Court, the
Registrar General shall cause the costs to
be recovered from the Nagar Palika
Parishad as arrears of land revenue through
the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and
remitted in account to the petitioner.

22. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated
to
the
Commissioner,
Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj, the District
Magistrate, Fatehpur and the Executive
Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki,
Fatehpur by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 402
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-C No. 9511 of 2022

Govind Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
8 All. Govind Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
403
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava III, Sri Girja Shanker
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Recruitment
for
appointment in force - Accusation in
criminal cases -Petitioner was acquitted
in two cases relating to the charge of
robbery on the basis of benefit of doubt
and trial against him in one another case
is pending - Effect - Candidature refused
- Validitty challenged - Held, the acquittal
of petitioner in two criminal cases was not
'honourable' as well as he is facing trial
for the offence which could not be said to
be of trivial in nature - Employer has a
right to consider antecedents of employee
-
Considering
the
antecedents
of
petitioner
the
respondents-authorities
have rightly refused to consider the
candidature of petitioner for a part of
disciplined force - Methu Meda relied
upon. (Para 11 and 12)
B. Service Law - Acquittal in criminal case,
to what extent effect candidature -
Honourable acquittal and Acquittal on the
basis of benefit of doubt distinguished -
Term 'Honourable Acquittal' defined -
When the accused is acquitted after full
consideration of prosecution evidence and
that the prosecution had miserably failed
to prove the charges leveled against the
accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honourably acquitted - S.
Samuthiram's case relied upon. (Para 6)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 2016(8) SCC
471
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police & anr. Vs
S. Samuthiram; 2013 (1) SCC 598
3. St. of Raj. & ors. Vs Love Kush Meena' 2021
SCC Online SC, 252
4. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Methu Meda; (2022) 1 SCC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned
counsel for petitioner has not disputed that
petitioner was an accused in three criminal
cases. In two criminal cases after trial
petitioner was acquitted, however, in one
case trial is pending. Details of criminal
cases with their present status alongwith
nature
of
acquittal
are
mentioned
hereinafter:

Sl.
No.
Case
No.
Section
Nature of
acquittal
1.
394 of
2013
392,
411
IPC
Benefit of
doubt
2.
553 of
2013
392,
411,
467,
468,
471 IPC
Benefit of
doubt
3.
478A
of 2014
147,
148,
149,
336,
323,
504,
506,
325
IPC
Trial
is
pending

2. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that since petitioner was acquitted in
two criminal cases, as the prosecution was
failed to proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt and also that the charges in third case
are not of serious in nature, therefore,
respondents-authorities
ought
to
have
considered the case of petitioner in the light
of principles enumerated in Avtar Singh vs.
Union of India and others, 2016(8) SCC
471, but they have not considered the case of
petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment,
therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside and matter should be remanded back
for consideration of case of petitioner in the
light of Avtar Singh (supra).

3.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for State-Respondents, while
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposing the above submissions submits
that nature of acquittal of petitioner in two
criminal cases does not fall under category
of honourable/ clean acquittal, rather the
order of acquittal was passed granting
benefit of doubt as the prosecution was
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, which has been considered in
impugned order. Petitioner was involved in
the offences which were serious in nature,
i.e., robbery, and it cannot be considered to
be a case of trivial nature as well as
presently petitioner is facing trial for the
offence being part of an unlawful assembly
and causing hurt.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

5. From the chart mentioned above,
undisputedly petitioner was charged for an
offence of robbery in two criminal cases.
Offence of robbery is a serious charge.
Trial Court passed order of acquittal in the
cases referred at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the
chart. I have perused the said judgments.
The Trial Court has acquitted petitioner, as
the prosecution was failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
granted benefit of doubt.

6. The nature of acquittal i.e.
honorable acquittal or acquittal on the basis
of benefit of doubt are terminologies not
mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, the Apex Court has discussed
these terminologies in Deputy Inspector
General of Police and another Vs.
S.Samuthiram,
2013
(1)
SCC
598,
relevant
paragraph
24
of
which
is
reproduced below:

"24.
The
meaning
of
the
expression ''honourable acquittal' came up
for consideration before this Court in RBI
Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC
541. In that case, this Court has considered
the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with
honourable acquittal by a criminal court
on the disciplinary proceedings. In that
context, this Court held that the mere
acquittal does not entitle an employee to
reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it
was held, has to be honourable. The
expressions
''honourable
acquittal',
''acquitted of blame', ''fully exonerated'
are unknown to the Code of Criminal
Procedure or the Penal Code, which are
coined by judicial pronouncements. It is
difficult to define precisely what is meant
by the expression ''honourably acquitted'.
When the accused is acquitted after full
consideration of prosecution evidence and
that the prosecution had miserably failed
to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused
was
honourably
acquitted."
(Emphasis added)

7. The Apex Court in a recent case of
State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Love
Kush Meena, 2021 SCC Online SC, 252
has also observed in this regard and
relevant
paragraph
15
of
which
is
mentioned hereinafter:

"15. It is pointed out that various
nuances arising in this judgment has been
considering
even
in
the
subsequent
judgments. In Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar
& Anr., (2018) 1 SCC 797, a two Judge
Bench of this Court dealt with the
expression "honourable acquittal". It was
opined that acquittal in a criminal case
was not conclusive for suitability of the
candidate concerned and it could not
always be inferred from an acquittal or
discharge that the person was falsely
8 All. Govind Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
405
involved or has no criminal antecedents.
Thus, unless it is an honourable acquittal,
the candidate cannot claim the benefit of
the case. No doubt, it was mentioned by
relying on the earlier judgment of this
Court in Inspector General of Police v. S.
Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598, that while
it was difficult to define precisely what is
meant by the expression "honourable
acquittal", an accused who is acquitted
after full consideration of the prosecution
evidence and prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charges levelled against
the accused...."

(emphasis added)

8. It is also not in dispute that in the
case mentioned at Serial No. 3 in the above
referred chart, petitioner is facing trial
wherein offences are under Sections 147,
148, 149, 336, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC.
Section 336 IPC provides details of an
offence of doing an act endangering life or
personal safety of others and Section 323
IPC provides punishment for voluntarily
causing hurt. The petitioner was part of
unlawful assembly and, therefore, nature of
offence could not be termed to be trivial.

9. In Avtar Singh (supra) in para 38.5
the Court held that, "in a case where the
employee has made declaration truthfully of
a concluded criminal case, the employer still
has the right to consider antecedents, and
cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate." In Avtar Singh (supra) Court
further held that, "Where conviction has
been recorded in case which is not trivial in
nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee. If
acquittal had already been recorded in a
case involving moral turpitude or offence of
heinous/serious nature, on technical ground
and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or
benefit of reasonable doubt has been given,
the employer may consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance
of the employee."

10. Supreme Court in a recent judgment
while considering Avtar Singh (supra) in
Union of India and others vs. Methu
Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1 has observed as
under:

"Acquittal on technical ground in
respect of the offences of heinous/serious
nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the
employer may have a right to consider all
relevant
facts
available
as
to
the
antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the
employee. Even in case, truthful declaration
regarding concluded trial has been made by
the employee, still the employer has the right
to consider antecedents and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate."
 (Emphasis added)

11. In the present case, the acquittal of
petitioner in two criminal cases was not
"honourable" as well as he is facing trial for the
offence which could not be said to be of trivial
in nature. As held in Methu Meda (supra), in
these circumstances employer has a right to
consider antecedents of employee, which was
decided against the petitioner in the present
case.

12. Considering the antecedents of
petitioner the respondents-authorities have
rightly refused to consider the candidature of
petitioner for a part of disciplined force,
therefore, after considering the facts as well as
law, discussed above, this Court does not find
any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

13. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 406
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 30536 of 2014

Kedar Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Singh, Sri J.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri B.P. Singh

A. Service Law - Entitlement of Gratuity -
GO dated 30.07.2007 and 16.09.2009 -
Applicability
-
Prospective
effect
-
Petitioner retired on 31.03.2006 from the
post of Head Clerk after attaining the age
of 60 years and had also given an option -
Finance
Controller
refused
to
grant
gratuity - Validity challenged - Held, GO
dated 16.09.2009 refers only to revision of
rates and how the emoluments are to be
calculated for grant of benefit of such
revised
rates.
It
does
not
decide
entitlement. The Government Order dated
30.7.2007 decides entitlement towards
gratuity and it refers to such employees
who had been left out from being given
such facility of gratuity earlier. It was
decided by the Government to extend the
facility of gratuity to such employees on
their retirement but such facility was
extended only with prospective effect -
High Court found no good ground for
interference, however left it open to the
petitioner to challenge the GO dated
30.07.2007. (Para 20 and 21)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Writ A No. 40568 of 2016; Noor Jahan Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 04.01.2018
2. Writ A No. 17399 of 2019; Usha Rani Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 07.11.2019
3. Special Appeal Defective No. 40 of 2021; St.
of U.P & ors. Vs Usha Rani decided on
28.01.2021
4. Writ A No. 5108 of 2021; Prem Kumari Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 08.07.2020
5. Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2008 (10) ADJ 63
6. Writ-A No. 2948 of 2021; Sarwasti Gupta Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 16.09.2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record of the
case.

2. None appears on behalf of B.S.A.
although name of Mr. B.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the B.S.A. has been shown in
the cause list.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
he was working as Head Clerk in the Office
of Sub Deputy Basic Education Officer,
Azamgarh and retired on 31.3.2006 after
attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner
had submitted his option to retire at the age
of 60 years, therefore, he was covered
under
the
Government
Order
dated
16.9.2009 which was issued accepting the
recommendation of the Pay Commission
revising the rates of pension/gratuity/family
pension and commutation of pension in
relation to teachers and employees of the
Basic
Education
Board
retiring
on
01.01.2006 or thereafter. Paragraph 4(1) of
the said government order provides that
such teaching/non-teaching employees who
retired before completing 10 years of
qualifying service though not entitled to get