Allahabad High Court

MATHURA PRASAD MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: PRAKASH PADIA

Holding

A termination order that has attained finality cannot be revived or altered on the basis of a later acquittal, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to post‑retirement benefits.

Summary

The petitioner, a former Assistant Agriculture Inspector appointed in 1968, was suspended in 1975 following an FIR under Section 409 IPC and subsequently terminated on 30‑12‑1976 after a departmental inquiry. He was acquitted of the criminal charges on 04‑01‑2024 and thereafter wrote to the Director of Agriculture seeking payment of post‑retirement benefits, which were not granted. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to provide the benefits. The State contended that the termination was based on proven financial irregularities and that the termination order had never been challenged, thus attaining finality. The Court held that once a termination order has become final, a later acquittal does not revive the employee’s right to retirement benefits. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a final termination order can be set aside on the ground of a subsequent acquittal in a criminal case
Whether the petitioner is entitled to post‑retirement benefits despite the finality of the termination order
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel payment of such benefits

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 409

Subjects

termination of service
post-retirement benefits
acquittal
mandamus
finality of order
public service law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 20349 of 2024

Mathura Prasad Maurya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Tiwari, Phool Chandra
Saroj
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following
prayer:-

I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to
the respondents concerned for providing the retiral benefit and salary to
the petitioner immediate in the interest of justice.

2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector in July,
1968 and discharging his duties till the time of his termination,i.e., on
31.12.1976. During the service of the petitioner, an F.I.R. has been lodged
against the petitioner on 03.02.1975 as Case Crime No.66 of 1975 under
Section 409 I.P.C. at Police Station Dakshin (South) District Firozabad.
Pursuant to the aforesaid the petitioner was suspended on 03.09.1975 and
after departmental inquiry, he was terminated on 31.12.1976.

3. Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
stated that the correct date of termination is 30.12.1976. In the aforesaid
criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgement and order dated
04.01.2024. It is stated in paragraph 17 of the affidavit that in case, the
petitioner had not been terminated on 30.12.1976, he would be retired in
January, 2001.
WRIA No. 20349 of 2024
2

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after his acquittal,
a letter has been written by the petitioner to the Director of Agriculture
Lucknow on 21.10.2024 to make payment of post retiral benefits to the
petitioner. Since no decision has been taken, hence the present petition
has been filed.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it stated that while
discharging the duties on the post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector, the
petitioner found guilty for committing financial irregularities and
embezzlement, therefore, his services has been terminated and order of
recovery has been passed.

6. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the order of termination
has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time before any
forum or competent court of law till date, therefore the same has attained
finality and even though copy of the order of termination has also not
challenged in the present petition and copy of the same has also not been
appended with the petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that once the order of
termination dated 30.12.1976 has attained finality, no relief as sought by
the petitioner has been granted to the petitioner only on the ground that
the petitioner has been acquitted and the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed.

9. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 5, 2026
saqlain

Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…