Indra Jeet Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9731 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Indra Jeet Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 25 April, 2025

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23690
 
Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4533 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Indra Jeet Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mani Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of pension from January, 2024 as well as to pay regular pension to the petitioner.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have not paid pension which is admittedly due since January, 2024 till date and they 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.

5. On the other hand, Shri V K Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions states that as there is shortage of fund, as such the pension could not be paid to the petitioners.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges 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 petitioners, 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. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to ensure payment of pension to the petitioner since January, 2024 along with arrears till date and to ensure that the petitioner continue to receive payment of pension 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 pension be paid to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 25.4.2025

Saurabh Yadav/-