Prema Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Urban

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nad Shri Pankaj Shukla, Advoctae holding brief of Shri Sampurna Nand Shukla, leanred counsel for the respondents

2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to forthwith pay the entire outstanding retiral dues, including pension arrears, balance gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance, provident fund, and any other admissible benefits, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date such dues became payable till the date of actual payment. (ii) Direct the opposite parties to produce all relevant records and documents pertaining to the service and retirement benefits of the petitioner's late husband for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (iii) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, thereby ensuring complete and speedy justice to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband, namely, Late Raj Mani Shukla was appointed as Pipeline fitter on temporary basis of 29.10.1984 and subsequently, he was regularized on

10.12.1987. He further submits that on 24.07.2012, a retirement notice 2 WRIA No. 14468 of 2025 was served upon the petitioner's husband informing about his retirement on 01.01.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the husband of the petitioner instituted a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.2015 of 2013 before this Court which was finally decided on 07.09.2022.

4. The order dated 07.09.2022 passed by Writ-A No.2015 of 2013 is extracted as under: "Heard. The original petitioner claims to have been appointed under the contesting opposite parties i.e. Nagar Palika Parishad, Pratapgarh in the year 1984 as temporary employee. In the year 1988, the services of the petitioner were regularized. Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad says that the date of regularization or permanence is

10.12.1987 and not 1988. He retired from service of the Nagar Palika Parishad in the year 2013. This petition was filed by the petitioner after his retirement. At the time of entry in the service, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 11.01.1953 on the basis of the documents produced by him at that time as informed by Mr. Sampurnand Shukla, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad. The petitioner claims that the correct date of birth is 25.12.1960. It is also his claim that on 12.08.1988, he had submitted a representation for correction in the date of birth as aforesaid based on the extracts of the family register, etc. However, this document has been filed with the rejoinder affidavit and not with the writ petition, therefore, opposite parties have not filed any reply to the same. As regards high school qualification, the petitioner acquired this qualification in 1989 after entering into service, therefore, obviously the high school certificate would not be of much relevance in this regard. The petitioner, even assuming that he had submitted any representation in 1988 or 1989 as claimed in the rejoinder affidavit, kept silent all along till his retirement in the year 2013. Matters of change of date of birth cannot be entertained after so many years, but, somehow this petition was entertained in 2013 after the petitioner had retired. The law is very well settled in this regard. This is not a matter where any further indulgence should be shown by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the delay in approaching the Court and the disputed factual issues involved. 3 WRIA No. 14468 of 2025 Whatever retiral dues or death-cum-retirement benefits are admissible to the legal heirs of the original petitioner who have been substituted in these proceedings, shall be released by the Nagar Palika Parishad within three months. If they are not payable, then, the reasons for the same shall be communicated accordingly. The writ petition is dismissed. "

5. He next submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner died on 20.05.2021. He submits that in fact, the direction was made in the aforesaid judgment and order that whatever retiral dues or death-cum-retirement benefits are admissible to the legal heirs of the original petitioner shall be released by the Nagar Palika Parishad within three months but even after passing of about more than three years, the same has not been paid. He next submits that some amount about Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid against the gratuity amount whereas, admittedly, more than 30,000/- of the gratuity amount including Rs.13,41,912 /- of arrears of pension including the G.I.S. and leave encashment has still not been paid. Further submission is that the petitioner is a widow and she is suffering hard from non payment of the arrears of pension as well as other dues admissible to her.

6. He further submits that in a response to the RTI, it has been admitted that the aforesaid amount is payable to the petitioner, therefore, the submission is that the respondent no.4- Nagar Palika Parishad, Pratapgarh may be directed to make the payment of the aforesaid retiral dues and arrears of the pension to the petitioner within time fixed by this Court.

7. On the other hand, Shri Pankaj Shukla has submitted that as per the instruction, some dues are left to be paid to the petitioner including arrears of pension and that could not be paid to the petitioner due to financial crunch in the Department and the Department is trying its level best to make the payment and same will be paid as soon as the availability of the fund would be there.

8. Upon the consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that there is an admission between the parties that the arrears of pension as well as certain other dues have not been paid. Against the gratuity, Rs.2,50,000/- have been paid, whereas, the 4 WRIA No. 14468 of 2025 payable gratuity amount is Rs.2,80,000/- as per the admission of the department. As further, more than 13,00,000/- of arrears of pension is also admitted to be not paid to the petitioner.

9. This Court has noticed that the financial crunch cannot be the impediment so as the payment of the retiral dues to an employee is concerned. This issue has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shiv Shankar Mishra Vs. State of UP and Ors. reported in (2015) SCC OnLine AII 899 wherein, it is settled that the financial hardship could not come into the way of payment of arrears or death/retiral dues of an employee of a department.

10. In this view of the matter, the respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to make payment of the retiral dues including arrears of the pension to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date certified, the copy of this order is produced before them.

11. Needless to say that the interest on the delayed payment shall also be payable to the petitioner, as is admissible under the law. December 15, 2025 V. Sinha (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nad Shri Pankaj Shukla, Advoctae holding brief of Shri Sampurna Nand Shukla, leanred counsel for the respondents

2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to forthwith pay the entire outstanding retiral dues, including pension arrears, balance gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance, provident fund, and any other admissible benefits, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date such dues became payable till the date of actual payment. (ii) Direct the opposite parties to produce all relevant records and documents pertaining to the service and retirement benefits of the petitioner's late husband for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (iii) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, thereby ensuring complete and speedy justice to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband, namely, Late Raj Mani Shukla was appointed as Pipeline fitter on temporary basis of 29.10.1984 and subsequently, he was regularized on

10.12.1987. He further submits that on 24.07.2012, a retirement notice 2 WRIA No. 14468 of 2025 was served upon the petitioner's husband informing about his retirement on 01.01.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the husband of the petitioner instituted a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.2015 of 2013 before this Court which was finally decided on 07.09.2022.

4. The order dated 07.09.2022 passed by Writ-A No.2015 of 2013 is extracted as under: "Heard. The original petitioner claims to have been appointed under the contesting opposite parties i.e. Nagar Palika Parishad, Pratapgarh in the year 1984 as temporary employee. In the year 1988, the services of the petitioner were regularized. Counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad says that the date of regularization or permanence is

10.12.1987 and not 1988. He retired from service of the Nagar Palika Parishad in the year 2013. This petition was filed by the petitioner after his retirement. At the time of entry in the service, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 11.01.1953 on the basis of the documents produced by him at that time as informed by Mr. Sampurnand Shukla, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad. The petitioner claims that the correct date of birth is 25.12.1960. It is also his claim that on 12.08.1988, he had submitted a representation for correction in the date of birth as aforesaid based on the extracts of the family register, etc. However, this document has been filed with the rejoinder affidavit and not with the writ petition, therefore, opposite parties have not filed any reply to the same. As regards high school qualification, the petitioner acquired this qualification in 1989 after entering into service, therefore, obviously the high school certificate would not be of much relevance in this regard. The petitioner, even assuming that he had submitted any representation in 1988 or 1989 as claimed in the rejoinder affidavit, kept silent all along till his retirement in the year 2013. Matters of change of date of birth cannot be entertained after so many years, but, somehow this petition was entertained in 2013 after the petitioner had retired. The law is very well settled in this regard. This is not a matter where any further indulgence should be shown by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the delay in approaching the Court and the disputed factual issues involved. 3 WRIA No. 14468 of 2025 Whatever retiral dues or death-cum-retirement benefits are admissible to the legal heirs of the original petitioner who have been substituted in these proceedings, shall be released by the Nagar Palika Parishad within three months. If they are not payable, then, the reasons for the same shall be communicated accordingly. The writ petition is dismissed. "

5. He next submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner died on 20.05.2021. He submits that in fact, the direction was made in the aforesaid judgment and order that whatever retiral dues or death-cum-retirement benefits are admissible to the legal heirs of the original petitioner shall be released by the Nagar Palika Parishad within three months but even after passing of about more than three years, the same has not been paid. He next submits that some amount about Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid against the gratuity amount whereas, admittedly, more than 30,000/- of the gratuity amount including Rs.13,41,912 /- of arrears of pension including the G.I.S. and leave encashment has still not been paid. Further submission is that the petitioner is a widow and she is suffering hard from non payment of the arrears of pension as well as other dues admissible to her.

6. He further submits that in a response to the RTI, it has been admitted that the aforesaid amount is payable to the petitioner, therefore, the submission is that the respondent no.4- Nagar Palika Parishad, Pratapgarh may be directed to make the payment of the aforesaid retiral dues and arrears of the pension to the petitioner within time fixed by this Court.

7. On the other hand, Shri Pankaj Shukla has submitted that as per the instruction, some dues are left to be paid to the petitioner including arrears of pension and that could not be paid to the petitioner due to financial crunch in the Department and the Department is trying its level best to make the payment and same will be paid as soon as the availability of the fund would be there.

8. Upon the consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that there is an admission between the parties that the arrears of pension as well as certain other dues have not been paid. Against the gratuity, Rs.2,50,000/- have been paid, whereas, the 4 WRIA No. 14468 of 2025 payable gratuity amount is Rs.2,80,000/- as per the admission of the department. As further, more than 13,00,000/- of arrears of pension is also admitted to be not paid to the petitioner.

9. This Court has noticed that the financial crunch cannot be the impediment so as the payment of the retiral dues to an employee is concerned. This issue has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shiv Shankar Mishra Vs. State of UP and Ors. reported in (2015) SCC OnLine AII 899 wherein, it is settled that the financial hardship could not come into the way of payment of arrears or death/retiral dues of an employee of a department.

10. In this view of the matter, the respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to make payment of the retiral dues including arrears of the pension to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date certified, the copy of this order is produced before them.

11. Needless to say that the interest on the delayed payment shall also be payable to the petitioner, as is admissible under the law. December 15, 2025 V. Sinha (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench