### Pendency of Criminal Proceedings Mandates Deferment of Gratuity and Regular Pension Under Regulation 919-A

The petitioner served as a Constable in the U.P. Police and retired on March 31, 2016.

Following retirement, he was granted a provisional pension, but his gratuity and leave encashment were withheld due to the pendency of Case Crime No. 446 of 2008 under Sections 223/224 of the IPC.

The criminal case arose from an incident in 2008 where an accused individual under the Gangster Act escaped from the petitioner's custody.

Although departmental proceedings were concluded with a punishment of reversion to the minimum pay scale, the criminal trial remained pending.

The petitioner challenged the order dated June 8, 2016, which denied these benefits.

The court primarily applied Regulations 351, 351-A, 351-AA, and 919-A of the U.P. Civil Services Regulations.

Regulation 351-AA stipulates that if judicial proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, a provisional pension under Regulation 919-A is to be sanctioned.

Regulation 919-A(3) provides a categorical prohibition, stating that no death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of judicial proceedings and the issuance of final orders.

Full Bench decision in Shivagopal and others v. State of U.P. (2019), which held that a pensioner must wait until the final order in judicial proceedings before claiming full pension and gratuity.

Krishna Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. (2018), which affirmed that gratuity cannot be accorded during the pendency of criminal proceedings.

The court reasoned that while Regulations 351 and 351-A deal with the power to withhold pension post-conviction or upon finding of grave misconduct, Regulations 351-AA and 919-A specifically govern the interim period of "pendency".

It noted that the petitioner’s negligence led to the escape of a Gangster Act accused, which impacts the administration of justice and constitutes a serious matter.

The court clarified that under the mandatory language of Regulation 919-A(3), the "seriousness" of the offence is ultimately irrelevant; the mere fact of a pending criminal case is sufficient to legally bar the release of gratuity.

The court distinguished the various judgments cited by the petitioner, noting they either involved peculiar facts (such as terminal illness) or failed to consider the statutory weight of Regulation 919-A.

The Writ Petition was dismissed.

The court held that Regulation 919-A(3) contains an absolute prohibition against the payment of gratuity during the pendency of a criminal trial.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the respondents for the release of gratuity only upon his acquittal in the criminal case.