High Court · 2025

1. This is third round of litigation. Petitioner-in-person has argued all the cases. He was successful in the first round of litigation and has served on basis of interim order and finally the first writ petition bearing No. 13851 of 1987 was disposed of by an order dated 14.08.2002.

2. In second round of litigation. Petitioner-in-person thereafter approached in the year 2017 and again remained successful and said writ petition No.19286 of 2017 was disposed of by an order dated 04.05.2017 with directions. For reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- "The petitioner claims that he was appointed as peon on compassionate ground in the year 1985. Later, his services were terminated on 13.4.1987 on the ground that at the time of his appointment the Govt. had put a ban on appointment of class IV employee. The petitioner challenged his termination by way of Writ Petition No. 13851 of 1987 which was allowed by this Court on 14.8.2002. Inspite of the said judgment, the petitioner alleges that he was not paid annual increment, bonus and benefit of Assured Career Progression despite several requests. It is stated that petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2016 but his pensionary benefit and other retiral dues have not been paid. It has also been averred in the writ petition that benefit of Assured Career Progression admissible under various Govt. Orders has also not been extended to him without any justifiable reason. I have heard the petitioner in person, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no.1,3 & 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav representing respondent no. 2. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has held that there should not be any delay in payment of pensionary benefit and other retiral dues and if delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. This Court also in Yogendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, being Writ-A No. 23639 of 2016, decided on 20.05.2016, after considering various decisions and statuary rules, has summarized broad principles on the issue as under : "i) Pension and other retiral benefits of all Government employees must be sanctioned / paid in terms of the Rules, 1995 on the eve of their retirement, if there is no legal impediment. ii) If there is any delay in the payment of retiral benefits and pension, the employee shall be entitled for the interest at the current market rate with effect from the date of his/her retirement till the date of actual payment. The interest on delayed payment shall be paid by the State Government. It will be open to the State Government to recover it from the officer/officials who are found to be guilty for negligence in payment of the pension. If such official is retired, the amount of the interest shall be recovered from his/her post retiral benefits/pension after furnishing him/her opportunity. iii) It will be open to the State Government to initiate proceedings against such official for taking action for misconduct in terms of the Rules, 1995, if he is in service.

50. In view of the above, respondents are directed to pay the simple interest at the rate of 9% from the one month after the death of petitioners father till the date of actual payment to them and further to pay the GPF within a month ,if it has already not been paid, along with the interest at the rate of 9% as held above." Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider cause of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously for payment of pensionary benefit, other retiral dues and benefit of ACP to him. The second respondent shall pay regard to the fact that in the matter of payment of retiral benefits, there should not be any delay. If delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% from the date of retirement till the date actual payment is made. The aforesaid exercise be completed within two months from the date of communication of the order. However, if there is any legal impediment in paying the retiral dues, the authority concerned shall pass reasoned order after furnishing opportunity to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs. "

3. Petitioner-in-person submits that substantial grievance thereafter was addressed, however, since a small grievance is still left, therefore, he further couraged and approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition being third round of litigation.

4. Today, Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Advocate present in Court, is requested to assist the Court along with petitioner-in-person. Both have referred an order dated 18.02.2019 passed by this Court, which is reproduced hereinafter :- "Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Kulshrestha in person, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent no.1 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to ensure the payment of increment w.e.f. 1986, promotional grade pay Rs. 3050-4590/- after completion of 24 years service and 9% interest on the delay payment from the date of retirement 31.03.2016 without any further delay. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." From the record, it transpires that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ-A No.19286 of 2017 (Virendra Kumar Kulshrestha Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), which was finally disposed of vide order dated 04.05.2017. The order dated 04.05.2017 is quoted herein-below: "The petitioner claims that he was appointed as peon on compassionate ground in the year 1985. Later, his services were terminated on 13.4.1987 on the ground that at the time of his appointment the Govt. had put a ban on appointment of class IV employee. The petitioner challenged his termination by way of Writ Petition No. 13851 of 1987 which was allowed by this Court on 14.8.2002. Inspite of the said judgment, the petitioner alleges that he was not paid annual increment, bonus and benefit of Assured Career Progression despite several requests. It is stated that petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2016 but his pensionary benefit and other retiral dues have not been paid. It has also been averred in the writ petition that benefit of Assured Career Progression admissible under various Govt. Orders has also not been extended to him without any justifiable reason. I have heard the petitioner in person, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no.1,3 & 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav representing respondent no. 2. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has held that there should not be any delay in payment of pensionary benefit and other retiral dues and if delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. This Court also in Yogendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, being Writ-A No. 23639 of 2016, decided on 20.05.2016, after considering various decisions and statuary rules, has summarized broad principles on the issue as under : "i) Pension and other retiral benefits of all Government employees must be sanctioned / paid in terms of the Rules, 1995 on the eve of their retirement, if there is no legal impediment. ii) If there is any delay in the payment of retiral benefits and pension, the employee shall be entitled for the interest at the current market rate with effect from the date of his/her retirement till the date of actual payment. The interest on delayed payment shall be paid by the State Government. It will be open to the State Government to recover it from the officer/officials who are found to be guilty for negligence in payment of the pension. If such official is retired, the amount of the interest shall be recovered from his/her post retiral benefits/pension after furnishing him/her opportunity. iii) It will be open to the State Government to initiate proceedings against such official for taking action for misconduct in terms of the Rules, 1995, if he is in service.

50. In view of the above, respondents are directed to pay the simple interest at the rate of 9% from the one month after the death of petitioners father till the date of actual payment to them and further to pay the GPF within a month ,if it has already not been paid, along with the interest at the rate of 9% as held above." Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider cause of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously for payment of pensionary benefit, other retiral dues and benefit of ACP to him. The second respondent shall pay regard to the fact that in the matter of payment of retiral benefits, there should not be any delay. If delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% from the date of retirement till the date actual payment is made. The aforesaid exercise be completed within two months from the date of communication of the order. However, if there is any legal impediment in paying the retiral dues, the authority concerned shall pass reasoned order after furnishing opportunity to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs." Pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2017, the petitioner has been paid certain amount, the details of which has been mentioned in paragraph 13 of the writ petition. For ready reference paragraph 13 of the writ petition is reproduced herein below: though treasury" "13. That as per Hon'ble Court's order dated 04.05.2017, the compliance should be ensured within 2 months i.e. till 19.07.2017 but the respondent no.2, without issuing any order directly sent a total amount of Rs.6,77,870/- and arrear amount Rs. 2,61,000/- in bank account of the petitioner From the perusal of the order dated 04.05.2017, it is apparent that a direction was issued by this Court to pay pensionary benefit, other retiral dues and the benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 in the aforesaid writ petition was directed to take the appropriate decision within two months from the date of the communication of the order. There is nothing on the record to show that in compliance of the order dated 04.05.2017, the respondent no.2 in writ petition no. 19286 of 2017 has taken any decision qua the extension of benefit of ACP to the petitioner. Other issues that have cropped up for consideration are regarding the entitlement of the petitioner regarding the payment of increment w.e.f. 1986 and the promotional grade pay of Rs.3050-4590/- after completion of 24 years of service. The issues as noted above need to be clarified by Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3. As prayed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, put up this case as a fresh case on 5th March, 2019. By the next date, Mr. A. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall positively obtain instructions in the matter in reference to the issue as noted above. "

5. Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for respondent refers the counter affidavit whereby claim of petitioner is denied on basis of certain circulars.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of that issues raised in order dated 18.02.2019 be considered by concerned respondent and in case, there is a legal impediment, the same shall be communicated to petitioner within a period of 6 months.

7. Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Advocate has assisted the Court and Court has offered to pay some remuneration, however, he has politely declined. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 P. Pandey PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. This is third round of litigation. Petitioner-in-person has argued all the cases. He was successful in the first round of litigation and has served on basis of interim order and finally the first writ petition bearing No. 13851 of 1987 was disposed of by an order dated 14.08.2002.

2. In second round of litigation. Petitioner-in-person thereafter approached in the year 2017 and again remained successful and said writ petition No.19286 of 2017 was disposed of by an order dated 04.05.2017 with directions. For reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- "The petitioner claims that he was appointed as peon on compassionate ground in the year 1985. Later, his services were terminated on 13.4.1987 on the ground that at the time of his appointment the Govt. had put a ban on appointment of class IV employee. The petitioner challenged his termination by way of Writ Petition No. 13851 of 1987 which was allowed by this Court on 14.8.2002. Inspite of the said judgment, the petitioner alleges that he was not paid annual increment, bonus and benefit of Assured Career Progression despite several requests. It is stated that petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2016 but his pensionary benefit and other retiral dues have not been paid. It has also been averred in the writ petition that benefit of Assured Career Progression admissible under various Govt. Orders has also not been extended to him without any justifiable reason. I have heard the petitioner in person, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no.1,3 & 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav representing respondent no. 2. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has held that there should not be any delay in payment of pensionary benefit and other retiral dues and if delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. This Court also in Yogendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, being Writ-A No. 23639 of 2016, decided on 20.05.2016, after considering various decisions and statuary rules, has summarized broad principles on the issue as under : "i) Pension and other retiral benefits of all Government employees must be sanctioned / paid in terms of the Rules, 1995 on the eve of their retirement, if there is no legal impediment. ii) If there is any delay in the payment of retiral benefits and pension, the employee shall be entitled for the interest at the current market rate with effect from the date of his/her retirement till the date of actual payment. The interest on delayed payment shall be paid by the State Government. It will be open to the State Government to recover it from the officer/officials who are found to be guilty for negligence in payment of the pension. If such official is retired, the amount of the interest shall be recovered from his/her post retiral benefits/pension after furnishing him/her opportunity. iii) It will be open to the State Government to initiate proceedings against such official for taking action for misconduct in terms of the Rules, 1995, if he is in service.

50. In view of the above, respondents are directed to pay the simple interest at the rate of 9% from the one month after the death of petitioners father till the date of actual payment to them and further to pay the GPF within a month ,if it has already not been paid, along with the interest at the rate of 9% as held above." Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider cause of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously for payment of pensionary benefit, other retiral dues and benefit of ACP to him. The second respondent shall pay regard to the fact that in the matter of payment of retiral benefits, there should not be any delay. If delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% from the date of retirement till the date actual payment is made. The aforesaid exercise be completed within two months from the date of communication of the order. However, if there is any legal impediment in paying the retiral dues, the authority concerned shall pass reasoned order after furnishing opportunity to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs. "

3. Petitioner-in-person submits that substantial grievance thereafter was addressed, however, since a small grievance is still left, therefore, he further couraged and approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition being third round of litigation.

4. Today, Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Advocate present in Court, is requested to assist the Court along with petitioner-in-person. Both have referred an order dated 18.02.2019 passed by this Court, which is reproduced hereinafter :- "Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Kulshrestha in person, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent no.1 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to ensure the payment of increment w.e.f. 1986, promotional grade pay Rs. 3050-4590/- after completion of 24 years service and 9% interest on the delay payment from the date of retirement 31.03.2016 without any further delay. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." From the record, it transpires that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ-A No.19286 of 2017 (Virendra Kumar Kulshrestha Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), which was finally disposed of vide order dated 04.05.2017. The order dated 04.05.2017 is quoted herein-below: "The petitioner claims that he was appointed as peon on compassionate ground in the year 1985. Later, his services were terminated on 13.4.1987 on the ground that at the time of his appointment the Govt. had put a ban on appointment of class IV employee. The petitioner challenged his termination by way of Writ Petition No. 13851 of 1987 which was allowed by this Court on 14.8.2002. Inspite of the said judgment, the petitioner alleges that he was not paid annual increment, bonus and benefit of Assured Career Progression despite several requests. It is stated that petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2016 but his pensionary benefit and other retiral dues have not been paid. It has also been averred in the writ petition that benefit of Assured Career Progression admissible under various Govt. Orders has also not been extended to him without any justifiable reason. I have heard the petitioner in person, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no.1,3 & 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav representing respondent no. 2. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has held that there should not be any delay in payment of pensionary benefit and other retiral dues and if delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest on the delayed payment. This Court also in Yogendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, being Writ-A No. 23639 of 2016, decided on 20.05.2016, after considering various decisions and statuary rules, has summarized broad principles on the issue as under : "i) Pension and other retiral benefits of all Government employees must be sanctioned / paid in terms of the Rules, 1995 on the eve of their retirement, if there is no legal impediment. ii) If there is any delay in the payment of retiral benefits and pension, the employee shall be entitled for the interest at the current market rate with effect from the date of his/her retirement till the date of actual payment. The interest on delayed payment shall be paid by the State Government. It will be open to the State Government to recover it from the officer/officials who are found to be guilty for negligence in payment of the pension. If such official is retired, the amount of the interest shall be recovered from his/her post retiral benefits/pension after furnishing him/her opportunity. iii) It will be open to the State Government to initiate proceedings against such official for taking action for misconduct in terms of the Rules, 1995, if he is in service.

50. In view of the above, respondents are directed to pay the simple interest at the rate of 9% from the one month after the death of petitioners father till the date of actual payment to them and further to pay the GPF within a month ,if it has already not been paid, along with the interest at the rate of 9% as held above." Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the second respondent to consider cause of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously for payment of pensionary benefit, other retiral dues and benefit of ACP to him. The second respondent shall pay regard to the fact that in the matter of payment of retiral benefits, there should not be any delay. If delay occurs, the employee is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% from the date of retirement till the date actual payment is made. The aforesaid exercise be completed within two months from the date of communication of the order. However, if there is any legal impediment in paying the retiral dues, the authority concerned shall pass reasoned order after furnishing opportunity to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs." Pursuant to the order dated 04.05.2017, the petitioner has been paid certain amount, the details of which has been mentioned in paragraph 13 of the writ petition. For ready reference paragraph 13 of the writ petition is reproduced herein below: though treasury" "13. That as per Hon'ble Court's order dated 04.05.2017, the compliance should be ensured within 2 months i.e. till 19.07.2017 but the respondent no.2, without issuing any order directly sent a total amount of Rs.6,77,870/- and arrear amount Rs. 2,61,000/- in bank account of the petitioner From the perusal of the order dated 04.05.2017, it is apparent that a direction was issued by this Court to pay pensionary benefit, other retiral dues and the benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 in the aforesaid writ petition was directed to take the appropriate decision within two months from the date of the communication of the order. There is nothing on the record to show that in compliance of the order dated 04.05.2017, the respondent no.2 in writ petition no. 19286 of 2017 has taken any decision qua the extension of benefit of ACP to the petitioner. Other issues that have cropped up for consideration are regarding the entitlement of the petitioner regarding the payment of increment w.e.f. 1986 and the promotional grade pay of Rs.3050-4590/- after completion of 24 years of service. The issues as noted above need to be clarified by Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3. As prayed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, put up this case as a fresh case on 5th March, 2019. By the next date, Mr. A. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall positively obtain instructions in the matter in reference to the issue as noted above. "

5. Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for respondent refers the counter affidavit whereby claim of petitioner is denied on basis of certain circulars.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of that issues raised in order dated 18.02.2019 be considered by concerned respondent and in case, there is a legal impediment, the same shall be communicated to petitioner within a period of 6 months.

7. Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Advocate has assisted the Court and Court has offered to pay some remuneration, however, he has politely declined. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 P. Pandey PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad