The Allahabad High Court refuses to grant pension to a convicted teacher, citing civil service laws

In a significant judgement, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea of ​​Ajay Pal Singh, a retired teacher, seeking pension benefits after his conviction in a serious criminal case. The case WRIT – A no. 5280 of 2015 was presided over by: Hon’ble Justice Shree Prakash Singh. The petitioner, Ajay Pal Singh, was represented by advocates Pushp Raj Singh, Gaurav Upadhyay and Manish Misra, while the state of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Principal Standing Counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh and Additional Principal Standing Counsel Vivek Shukla.

Case details

Ajay Pal Singh was initially appointed as an assistant teacher in CT class on August 1, 1972 and later promoted to LT class at Narvadeshwar Inter College, Raebareli. In 1977 he was involved in a murder case and in 1981 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal resulted in his sentence being reduced to seven years under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Singh was released from prison on January 3, 2010, after serving his sentence. He retired on June 30, 2009, but from October 1, 2004 until his retirement he did not receive any salary. After his release, Singh applied for post-retirement benefits, which was rejected, leading to an application for an injunction.

Related legal issues

The basic legal issue concerned the application of Art. 351 of the Civil Service Regulations, which states that future good conduct is an implied condition for the award of a pension. The ordinance allows the state government to withhold or withdraw pensions if a retiree is convicted of a serious crime or has committed serious misconduct.

Court decision

The court upheld the decision of the deputy director of education and the state government to deny Singh pension benefits. The court emphasized that Regulation 351 expressly gives the state government the power to withhold or withdraw a pension if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime. The court noted:

> “Future good conduct is an implied condition for the award of a pension. The State Government reserves the right to withhold or withdraw pension or any part thereof if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is guilty of serious misconduct.”

The court further clarified that the term “serious offence” includes offenses punishable by imprisonment of three to seven years as defined in section 2(54) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.

Important observations

Justice Shree Prakash Singh made several key observations in the judgment:

1. Conviction and pension rights: The court emphasized that Singh’s conviction for a serious crime justified the suspension of his pension under Regulation 351.

Read also

2. Justice and law: The court referred to previous judgments, stating that the principles of equity cannot override express provisions of law.

3. Finality of government decisions: The decision of the State Government in matters of withholding or withdrawal of pension shall be final and final.