Smt. Neelam Sachdeva v. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others), whereby the claim

2024 (Smt. Neelam Sachdeva Vs. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner’s husband Late Anil Kumar Sachdeva, after being selected through Public Service Commission, was appointed as Medical Officer Level-II in the P.M.H.S. Cadre of the State of U.P. on 27.4.1991 and thereafter he was further promoted on the post of Medical Officer Level-III on 29.8.2009. The State Government had introduced a scheme of Assured Career Progression (in short ‘A.C.P.’) for the P.M.H.S. Cadre of the State of U.P. wherein, it had been provided that the Medical Officers after completion of four years regular and satisfactory service shall be entitled for first 2 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-; after completion of 11 years regular and satisfactory service second A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-; on completion of 17 years regular and satisfactory service shall be entitled for third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- and on completion of 24 years of regular and satisfactory service shall be entitled for fourth A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8900/-.

4. The husband of the petitioner was granted Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- w.e.f. 26.6.2007. In view of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 26.2.2015 the petitioner’s husband became entitled for grant of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- on completion of 17 years of service w.e.f. 1.12.2008.

5. Since on 1.12.2008 a criminal case was pending before the trial court against the petitioner’s husband as such, he was not granted the benefit of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- on the ground that till such time the criminal case is pending against him, his services cannot be held to be satisfactory. The husband of the petitioner Dr. Anil Kumar Sachdeva, after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.05.2014 and he died on 24.12.2016. On the death of Dr. Anil Kumar Sachdeva, the criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 02/2008 stood abated vide order dated 22.2.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

6. The petitioner, after death of her husband and abatement of the criminal proceedings pending against him, submitted a representation to the competent authority praying therein that since the criminal case had been dismissed therefore, the entitlement of her husband for grant of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 has become absolute, as such the consequential financial benefits may be granted to the petitioner. The Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P. Lucknow vide his letter dated 8.2.2003 made recommendation for grant of third A.C.P. to the husband of the petitioner in Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and to pay consequential financial benefits to the petitioner. Since no decision was taken by the State Government as such, the petitioner preferred a Claim Petition No. 1441 of 2023, which was finally disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.7.2023, whereby direction was issued to the State Government to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 17.4.2023 by passing a 3 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 speaking and order. The State Government had passed an order on

28.11.2023, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for grant of benefit of third A.C.P. to her husband had been rejected on the ground that since the criminal case pending against the petitioner’s husband had been dismissed as abated therefore, it cannot be said that he has been exonerated from the charges levelled in the criminal case and as such, his services cannot be termed as satisfactory.

7. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2023 by filing a Claim Petition No. 360/2024 before the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow but the said claim petition had been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner’s husband for third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f 1.12.2008 had been rejected only for the reason that on the said date a criminal case was pending and therefore the services of the petitioner’s husband can not be treated as satisfactory but later on since the criminal case itself had been dismissed as abated, now there is no adverse material against the petitioner’s husband on the basis of which it can be said that his services were not satisfactory on 1.12.2008.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the learned Tribunal, while dismissing the claim petition vide impugned order dated

11.3.2025, had recorded a finding that since the criminal case pending against the husband of the petitioner had been dismissed as abated therefore, it cannot be inferred that he has been exonerated from the charges and thereby had presumed that the services of the petitioner’s husband were not satisfactory on 1.12.2008 whereas, it is apparent from the face of record that once the criminal case pending against the petitioner’s husband had been dismissed as abated, there is no material available on record, on the basis of which, it can be said that his services on 1.12.2008 were not satisfactory therefore, the respondents by no stretch of imagination could have denied the financial benefits claimed by the petitioner. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government had issued a Government Order on 28.7.1989 wherein Para 2 ख (5) provides as under :- 4 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 ंिक सरकारी सेवक अपना प्ष ्ऺस्तुत नही कर सकता "मृत्य होने की दशा में चू है और चू ंिक एकतरफा कायर्वाही िविधक दृि्ि से न्यायोिचत नहीं कही जा सकती है अतः मृत्यु के िदनांक को ऐसे िवभागीय /न्याियक कायर्वाही समाप्त हुई समझी जायेगी"

10. On the basis of the aforesaid provision made in the Government Order dated 28.7.1989, it has been submitted that once the criminal case pending against petitioner’s husband had been dismissed as abated and no departmental enquiry/disciplinary enquiry was pending, there is no other option left with the State Government except to treat the services of the petitioner’s husband to be satisfactory on 1.12.2008 and consequently to grant financial benefits to the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that after

1.12.2008, her husband was granted promotion from the post of Medical Office Level-II to the post of Medical Officer Level-III on 29.8.2009 and therefore, it is apparent that the State Government itself found the services of petitioner’s husband satisfactory and only on that basis, he was granted promotion, as such there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to deny the benefit of third A.C.P. to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f.

1.12.2008. It has further been argued that the learned Tribunal did not accept the aforesaid argument only for the reason that the petitioner could not produce the order of promotion but lost sight that the respondents in their written statement have not denied the fact of promotion on the post of Medical Office Level-III on 29.8.2009 as such, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025, on its face, is unsustainable.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the third ground taken by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner is that under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1976’) legal heirs of a deceased government servant can file claim petition only for payment of admissible pay, allowances, gratuity, GPF and other sanctioned service benefits but they cannot challenge any order passed by the State Government. The said reasoning given by the learned Tribunal, on its face, is erroneous, as the petitioner has made prayer for grant of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 to her husband and to pay consequential monetary benefits therefore, in fact, the claim in 5 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 question is for grant of monetary benefits admissible to her husband, as such the claim petition of the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 is maintainable.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus argued that the claim petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 360/24 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed by this Court with a further direction to the respondents to grant third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and to pay consequential benefits to the petitioner.

14. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents has argued that since the criminal case pending against the petitioner’s husband had only been dismissed as abated, it cannot be inferred that the services of the petitioner’s husband were satisfactory on

1.12.2008 and therefore, the impugned order dated 11.3.2025 does not suffer from any illegality.

15. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents has also submitted that the claim petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as the legal heirs of a government servant can file claim petition under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 only for the payment of admissible pay, allowances, gratuity, GPF and other sanctioned benefits. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has not denied promotion of the petitioner’s husband from the post of Medical Officer Level-II to the post of Medical Officer Level-III made on 29.8.2009.

16. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents available on record of the writ petition.

17. We find that Section 4 of the Act of 1976 provides that the legal heirs of the deceased government servant can file a claim petition before the Tribunal for payment of salary, allowances, gratuity, provident fund, pension and other pecuniary benefits relating to service, due to such public servant. For ready reference Section 4 of the Act of 1976 is 6 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 extracted as under:- “4. Reference of claim to Tribunal. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person who is or has been a public servant and is aggrieved by an order pertaining to a service matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make a reference of claim to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Explanation For the purpose of this sub-section "order" means an order or omission or in-action of the State Government or a local authority or any other Corporation or company referred to in clause (b) of Section 2 or of an officer, committee or other body or agency of the State Government or such local authority or Corporation or company Provided that no reference shall, subject to the terms of any contract, be made in respect of a claim arising out of the transfer of a public servant. Provided further that in the case of the death of a public servant, his legal representative, and where there are two or more such representatives, all of them jointly, may make a reference to the Tribunal for payment of salary, allowances, gratuity, provident fund, pension and other pecuniory benefits relating to services due to such public servant.”

18. The petitioner had filed Claim Petition No. 360 of 2024 claiming therein that her husband was entitled for grant of third ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and therefore, she may be paid pecuniary benefits arising out of the grant of third ACP, as such the claim petition filed by the petitioner is well within the ambit of the provisions made in Section 4 of the Act of 1976, and the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that in view of the provisions made in Section 4 of the Act of 1976, the petitioner cannot file the claim petition in question.

19. This Court also finds that on 1.12.2008 i.e. on the date when petitioner’s husband became eligible for grant of third ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/-, a criminal case was pending against him but later on the State itself granted him promotion from the post of Medical Officer Level-II to the post of Medical Officer Level-III on 29.8.2009 therefore, it is apparent that once the State Government itself found services of the petitioner’s husband satisfactory on 29.8.2009 then it cannot be said that prior to it on 01.12.2008 his services were not satisfactory merely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings at that time. Mere pendency of the criminal case on 1.12.2008 could not be the basis for forming any opinion that services were not satisfactory though it could be the basis for 7 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 keeping the recommendation in sealed cover. Moreover, even on

1.12.2008 the appropriate course was to consider him and put the recommendation in sealed cover before granting ACP but it was not done. Though the factum of promotion of the petitioner’s husband made on

29.8.2009 was not denied by the respondents but the learned Tribunal has not considered this fact only for the reason that the petitioner could not produce copy of the promotion order. Once there was no denial by the respondents regarding promotion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal, on its face, is erroneous. Further, after death of the petitioner's husband and the criminal proceedings against him stands abated vide order dated

22.02.2021, meaning thereby, there was no trial nor conviction. Order dated 22.02.2021 can't be the basis for forming any opinion that services of the petitioner's husband were not satisfactory on 01.12.2008, especially in view of the subsequent events, as already noticed.

20. This Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aforesaid facts in correct perspective and has also not considered the provisions made in Government Order dated 28.7.1989 wherein Para 2 ख (5) provides that on the death of the government servant departmental proceedings/judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been dropped.

21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 360/2024 is not sustainable and further the State Government is under obligation to grant benefit of third A.C.P. in the G rade Pay of Rs. 8700/- to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and thereby to grant all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner.

22. In the result this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment & order dated 11.3.2025, passed by learned U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 360/2024, is hereby quashed.

23. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and further to grant consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. August 29, 2025 Anuj Singh/Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2024 (Smt. Neelam Sachdeva Vs. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner’s husband Late Anil Kumar Sachdeva, after being selected through Public Service Commission, was appointed as Medical Officer Level-II in the P.M.H.S. Cadre of the State of U.P. on 27.4.1991 and thereafter he was further promoted on the post of Medical Officer Level-III on 29.8.2009. The State Government had introduced a scheme of Assured Career Progression (in short ‘A.C.P.’) for the P.M.H.S. Cadre of the State of U.P. wherein, it had been provided that the Medical Officers after completion of four years regular and satisfactory service shall be entitled for first 2 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-; after completion of 11 years regular and satisfactory service second A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-; on completion of 17 years regular and satisfactory service shall be entitled for third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- and on completion of 24 years of regular and satisfactory service shall be entitled for fourth A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8900/-.

4. The husband of the petitioner was granted Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- w.e.f. 26.6.2007. In view of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 26.2.2015 the petitioner’s husband became entitled for grant of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- on completion of 17 years of service w.e.f. 1.12.2008.

5. Since on 1.12.2008 a criminal case was pending before the trial court against the petitioner’s husband as such, he was not granted the benefit of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- on the ground that till such time the criminal case is pending against him, his services cannot be held to be satisfactory. The husband of the petitioner Dr. Anil Kumar Sachdeva, after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.05.2014 and he died on 24.12.2016. On the death of Dr. Anil Kumar Sachdeva, the criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 02/2008 stood abated vide order dated 22.2.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

6. The petitioner, after death of her husband and abatement of the criminal proceedings pending against him, submitted a representation to the competent authority praying therein that since the criminal case had been dismissed therefore, the entitlement of her husband for grant of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 has become absolute, as such the consequential financial benefits may be granted to the petitioner. The Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P. Lucknow vide his letter dated 8.2.2003 made recommendation for grant of third A.C.P. to the husband of the petitioner in Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and to pay consequential financial benefits to the petitioner. Since no decision was taken by the State Government as such, the petitioner preferred a Claim Petition No. 1441 of 2023, which was finally disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.7.2023, whereby direction was issued to the State Government to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 17.4.2023 by passing a 3 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 speaking and order. The State Government had passed an order on

28.11.2023, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for grant of benefit of third A.C.P. to her husband had been rejected on the ground that since the criminal case pending against the petitioner’s husband had been dismissed as abated therefore, it cannot be said that he has been exonerated from the charges levelled in the criminal case and as such, his services cannot be termed as satisfactory.

7. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2023 by filing a Claim Petition No. 360/2024 before the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow but the said claim petition had been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner’s husband for third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f 1.12.2008 had been rejected only for the reason that on the said date a criminal case was pending and therefore the services of the petitioner’s husband can not be treated as satisfactory but later on since the criminal case itself had been dismissed as abated, now there is no adverse material against the petitioner’s husband on the basis of which it can be said that his services were not satisfactory on 1.12.2008.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the learned Tribunal, while dismissing the claim petition vide impugned order dated

11.3.2025, had recorded a finding that since the criminal case pending against the husband of the petitioner had been dismissed as abated therefore, it cannot be inferred that he has been exonerated from the charges and thereby had presumed that the services of the petitioner’s husband were not satisfactory on 1.12.2008 whereas, it is apparent from the face of record that once the criminal case pending against the petitioner’s husband had been dismissed as abated, there is no material available on record, on the basis of which, it can be said that his services on 1.12.2008 were not satisfactory therefore, the respondents by no stretch of imagination could have denied the financial benefits claimed by the petitioner. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government had issued a Government Order on 28.7.1989 wherein Para 2 ख (5) provides as under :- 4 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 ंिक सरकारी सेवक अपना प्ष ्ऺस्तुत नही कर सकता "मृत्य होने की दशा में चू है और चू ंिक एकतरफा कायर्वाही िविधक दृि्ि से न्यायोिचत नहीं कही जा सकती है अतः मृत्यु के िदनांक को ऐसे िवभागीय /न्याियक कायर्वाही समाप्त हुई समझी जायेगी"

10. On the basis of the aforesaid provision made in the Government Order dated 28.7.1989, it has been submitted that once the criminal case pending against petitioner’s husband had been dismissed as abated and no departmental enquiry/disciplinary enquiry was pending, there is no other option left with the State Government except to treat the services of the petitioner’s husband to be satisfactory on 1.12.2008 and consequently to grant financial benefits to the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that after

1.12.2008, her husband was granted promotion from the post of Medical Office Level-II to the post of Medical Officer Level-III on 29.8.2009 and therefore, it is apparent that the State Government itself found the services of petitioner’s husband satisfactory and only on that basis, he was granted promotion, as such there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to deny the benefit of third A.C.P. to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f.

1.12.2008. It has further been argued that the learned Tribunal did not accept the aforesaid argument only for the reason that the petitioner could not produce the order of promotion but lost sight that the respondents in their written statement have not denied the fact of promotion on the post of Medical Office Level-III on 29.8.2009 as such, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025, on its face, is unsustainable.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the third ground taken by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner is that under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1976’) legal heirs of a deceased government servant can file claim petition only for payment of admissible pay, allowances, gratuity, GPF and other sanctioned service benefits but they cannot challenge any order passed by the State Government. The said reasoning given by the learned Tribunal, on its face, is erroneous, as the petitioner has made prayer for grant of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 to her husband and to pay consequential monetary benefits therefore, in fact, the claim in 5 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 question is for grant of monetary benefits admissible to her husband, as such the claim petition of the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 is maintainable.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus argued that the claim petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 360/24 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed by this Court with a further direction to the respondents to grant third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and to pay consequential benefits to the petitioner.

14. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents has argued that since the criminal case pending against the petitioner’s husband had only been dismissed as abated, it cannot be inferred that the services of the petitioner’s husband were satisfactory on

1.12.2008 and therefore, the impugned order dated 11.3.2025 does not suffer from any illegality.

15. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents has also submitted that the claim petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as the legal heirs of a government servant can file claim petition under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 only for the payment of admissible pay, allowances, gratuity, GPF and other sanctioned benefits. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has not denied promotion of the petitioner’s husband from the post of Medical Officer Level-II to the post of Medical Officer Level-III made on 29.8.2009.

16. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents available on record of the writ petition.

17. We find that Section 4 of the Act of 1976 provides that the legal heirs of the deceased government servant can file a claim petition before the Tribunal for payment of salary, allowances, gratuity, provident fund, pension and other pecuniary benefits relating to service, due to such public servant. For ready reference Section 4 of the Act of 1976 is 6 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 extracted as under:- “4. Reference of claim to Tribunal. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person who is or has been a public servant and is aggrieved by an order pertaining to a service matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make a reference of claim to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Explanation For the purpose of this sub-section "order" means an order or omission or in-action of the State Government or a local authority or any other Corporation or company referred to in clause (b) of Section 2 or of an officer, committee or other body or agency of the State Government or such local authority or Corporation or company Provided that no reference shall, subject to the terms of any contract, be made in respect of a claim arising out of the transfer of a public servant. Provided further that in the case of the death of a public servant, his legal representative, and where there are two or more such representatives, all of them jointly, may make a reference to the Tribunal for payment of salary, allowances, gratuity, provident fund, pension and other pecuniory benefits relating to services due to such public servant.”

18. The petitioner had filed Claim Petition No. 360 of 2024 claiming therein that her husband was entitled for grant of third ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and therefore, she may be paid pecuniary benefits arising out of the grant of third ACP, as such the claim petition filed by the petitioner is well within the ambit of the provisions made in Section 4 of the Act of 1976, and the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that in view of the provisions made in Section 4 of the Act of 1976, the petitioner cannot file the claim petition in question.

19. This Court also finds that on 1.12.2008 i.e. on the date when petitioner’s husband became eligible for grant of third ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/-, a criminal case was pending against him but later on the State itself granted him promotion from the post of Medical Officer Level-II to the post of Medical Officer Level-III on 29.8.2009 therefore, it is apparent that once the State Government itself found services of the petitioner’s husband satisfactory on 29.8.2009 then it cannot be said that prior to it on 01.12.2008 his services were not satisfactory merely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings at that time. Mere pendency of the criminal case on 1.12.2008 could not be the basis for forming any opinion that services were not satisfactory though it could be the basis for 7 WRIA No. 8968 of 2025 keeping the recommendation in sealed cover. Moreover, even on

1.12.2008 the appropriate course was to consider him and put the recommendation in sealed cover before granting ACP but it was not done. Though the factum of promotion of the petitioner’s husband made on

29.8.2009 was not denied by the respondents but the learned Tribunal has not considered this fact only for the reason that the petitioner could not produce copy of the promotion order. Once there was no denial by the respondents regarding promotion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal, on its face, is erroneous. Further, after death of the petitioner's husband and the criminal proceedings against him stands abated vide order dated

22.02.2021, meaning thereby, there was no trial nor conviction. Order dated 22.02.2021 can't be the basis for forming any opinion that services of the petitioner's husband were not satisfactory on 01.12.2008, especially in view of the subsequent events, as already noticed.

20. This Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aforesaid facts in correct perspective and has also not considered the provisions made in Government Order dated 28.7.1989 wherein Para 2 ख (5) provides that on the death of the government servant departmental proceedings/judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been dropped.

21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 11.3.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 360/2024 is not sustainable and further the State Government is under obligation to grant benefit of third A.C.P. in the G rade Pay of Rs. 8700/- to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and thereby to grant all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner.

22. In the result this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment & order dated 11.3.2025, passed by learned U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 360/2024, is hereby quashed.

23. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of third A.C.P. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- to the petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 1.12.2008 and further to grant consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. August 29, 2025 Anuj Singh/Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench