Allowed

Shiv Ram Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024WRIA/3195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Amins/co-operative staff, sought arrears of pension due since August 2023; the State pleaded fund shortage. The court held Rule 21-A requires government to make good shortfalls from collection charges and relied on precedent that paucity of funds is no excuse for non-payment, issuing mandamus to pay.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued commanding respondents to pay pension with arrears from August 2023 within four weeks and continue payment per Rule 21-A.

Shiv Ram Singh and Others vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35617

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3195 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shiv Ram Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. K. Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent(s).

¶7

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

¶8

The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of pension from August 2023 as well as to pay regular pension to the petitioners.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have not paid pension which is admittedly due since August, 2023 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.

¶10

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

¶11

petitioners.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 petitioners since August, 2023 along with arrears till date and to ensure that the petitioners 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.5.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Ram Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Ram Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijendra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 6 Others

Munish Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Krishna Kumar Srivastav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resource Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Mirtunjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dharmendr vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another