Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 40 of 2017 Appellant :- Shivagopal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kishor Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47540 of 2015 Petitioner :- Kalika Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Singh Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47532 of 2015° Petitioner :- Deshraj Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Singh Rathore| Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. — 47537 of 2015° Petitioner :- Kaushlesh Sunder Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Singh Rathore| Counsel for Respondent :–C.S.C.\ And Case :- WRIT - A No. — 29319 of 2017° 25.25.25.25.?_— – Petitioner :- Chandrakesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others\ Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrit Raj Chaurasiya/ +_878787.3256 Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.! 1. We have heard Sri Ram Kishore Gupta on behalf of the appellants and Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.@ 2. The written submission of Sri B.N. Singh Rathore has also been considered. 3. In the batch of writ petitions the controversy involved is with regard to entitlement of the~ government servant to receive death-cum-retirement gratuity on superannuation or otherwise pending judicial proceedings.$ 4. Petitioners are government employees {Lekhpal/Police Officials}, who have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, and by the impugned orders, their full pension and gratuity has been kept in abeyance pending judicial proceedings against them. The petitioners have sought quashing of the impugned orders declining full pension and gratuity during pendency of the judicial proceedings and further have sought an additional direction to the respondent-authority to release/pay full pension and gratuity on the plea that pension and gratuity cannot be withheld during pendency of the judicial proceedings or that the allegations/charge do not pertain to grave misconduct/serious crime or having caused pecuniary loss. 5. The learned Single Judge upon noticing conflicting Division Bench decisions rendered in State of U.P., and others Vs. Jai Prakash1 (Jai Prakash case) on the one hand and in particular the decision rendered by the Division Bench in State of U.P. and others Vs. Faini Singh2 (Faini Singh case) and others on the other hand, referred the matter to the larger Bench. 6. The learned Single Judge while referring the matter has not formulated or referred any particular question of law to be answered by the larger Bench. The Full Bench of this Court in Tuples Educational Society and another Vs. State of U.P., and another3 opined that the referring Court has ample power under Chapter V Rule-64 to refer a case to a larger Bench either framing questions of law or the entire case. 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the writ petitions and the reference order with the assistance. [%Rohit typing center?}