Musheera Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64145

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7990 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Musheera

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Vibhag U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Islam Khan,Sabir Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sriniwas Bajpai

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1,2 & 3 and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 & 5.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶9

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

¶10

"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties specially opposite party No.4 to immediate pay to petitioner the remaining balance amount of Rs.60,647/towards A.C.P. and remaining balance amount of Rs.2,66,822/-towards other heads (as is mentioned in annexure no.3.) which was to be paid to late husband of the petitioner Jameel Ahmad (retired Tax Collector) which was duly sanctioned by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow on 11.7.2018 and a consequential letter no.6788/21M-185(2012-13) dated 25.7.2018(annexure no.2.) was also issued to Executive OfÏcer Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur to make payment accordingly to Jameel Ahmad, the husband of petitioner.

¶11

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opp. party no.3. District Magistrate, Sitapur to immediately take strict action against the opp.party no.4. Executive OfÏcer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur for not making the payment of due amount of petitioner's late husband which was duly sanctioned by the Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and on 25.7.2018 also issued direction to opp.party no.4 to make payment of the aforesaid amount.

¶12

(c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opp.parties to pay to petitioner the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of Rs.60,647/-towards A.C.P.and

¶13

remaining balance amount of Rs.2,66,822/-towards other heads which was to be paid to late husband of the petitioner Jameel Ahmad from the date it was due, till the date of actual payment. ...................."

¶14

Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.4 and 5 fairly states that on account of paucity of funds, the dues have not been paid which shall be paid positively within a period of six months from today. It is further argued that part payment of the 1/4 of the total dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months and the balance shall be paid within a period of six months.

¶15

In view of the fairness of the counsel for respondents no.4 and 5, it is directed that onefourth of the total outstanding amount to which the petitioner is entitled shall be paid by the respondents within a period of three months from today and the balance shall be paid within a period of six months. In case the amount is not paid within the time as granted, the respondents no.4 and 5 would be liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum from the date when the amount fell due till actual payment/realization.

¶16

With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶17

Order Date : - 18.9.2024 Subodh/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Musheera v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musheera v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nazia Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and 3 Others

Sandip Kumar and 31 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and 17 Others

Jai Shanker Lal Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Bachhau vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Musheera vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Hriday Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko and 6 Others