Allahabad High Court
Sheetla Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34322
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2883 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sheetla Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mani Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ram Pratap Singh Chauhan, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent(s).
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.
3. The instant petition has been filed praying for a quashing of the order dated 19.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the respondents No.3, upon a representation preferred by the petitioner for payment of his long standing salary, has disposed of the said representation on the ground that as the petitioner has failed to make sufficient recovery, consequently, the fund as available is not to such an extent that the salary of the petitioner can be paid.
4. The facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order dated 10.04.2024, which for the sake convenience is reproduced below:
"Heard.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working on the post of Collection Amin in the co-operative department. As per the rules governing the Amins and other staffs and as per the Amended Rules, 2005, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 9 to the petition, the payment of salary and allowances of Amins has to be made from the fund and if any difficulty in making payment of pay and other allowances to the Amins is noticed, the State government has to contribute to the fund.
The contention is that despite the petitioner continuously working on the post of Amin, he has not been paid salary since January, 2023. He had approached this Court by filing Writ A No.169 of 2024 in Re: Sheetla Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others and the writ Court, vide order dated 10.01.2024, had required the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
In pursuance thereof, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary vide order impugned dated 19.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, on the ground that sufficient fund is not available to pay salary to the petitioner.
The contention is that once the amended Rules, 2005 themselves provide that in case of any shortage of fund, the State government shall make good the said shortage consequently, the ground indicated in the order impugned cannot be said to be legal and tenable in the eyes of law.
Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions as to why despite the Amended Rules, 2005 providing for shortage of fund to be made good by the State government, the shortage has been made a ground in the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 to not pay the salary to the petitioner along with the arrears since January, 2023.
List thereafter as fresh."
5. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary which is admittedly due since January, 2023 till date have failed to consider the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and Others Staff Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2005") which categorically provides in amended Rule 21-A that the payment of salary and allowances of the Amins and Sahyogi shall be made from the fund and if any difficulty in making payments of pay and other allowances to Amins and Sahyogis appointed under Rule 3 then the government shall contribute to the fund to that extent and the same amount shall be deposited in the State Ex-chequer from the money recovered under collection charges.
6. From perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is apparent that although the payment of salary and allowances have to be made from the fund but in the case of shortage, the same is to be made good by the government. Thus, even if the fund is having a certain shortage, may be on account of less recovery made by the petitioner, yet the same does not absolve the government from making good the said shortage and for ensuring the payment to the Amins and other staff as provided under the said rule by contributing to the funds.
7. Even otherwise, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2015 (3) ALJ 551 has held that paucity of fund could not be cited as an excuse not to pay a salary of the employee who has worked for the period for which salary is due.
8. Accordingly, considering the provisions of Rule 21-A of the Rules, 2005 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Shiv Shankar Mishra (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner since January, 2023 along with arrears till date and to ensure that the petitioner continues to receive payment of regular salary provided there is no legal impediment. In case of shortage of funds, the respondents-State shall adhere to the provisions of the Rule 21-A of the Rules, 2005.
9. Let the payment of arrears of salary be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
S. Shivhare
