Allowed

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024WRIA/5946/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mathur allowed the writ petition seeking direction for payment of pension arrears. The court held that the petitioner and similarly situated retired persons are entitled to pension and directed the respondents to obtain a state grant under Rule 21-A to pay outstanding dues and ensure regular payment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; Respondent No. 1 directed to pass orders for sanction of grant/money to ensure pension payments and repay the grant as per Rule 21-A within six weeks.

Surendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71686

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5946 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was working on the post of "kurk amin" since 1978 and retired from service on 31.08.2015. After his retirement he was getting his pension according to U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1955, till the same was stopped without any order or reason being communicated to the petitioner and consequently he has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to pay arrears of his pension from September, 2023 till date.

¶8

On the basis of instructions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that due to paucity of funds pension could not be paid to the petitioner.

¶9

Per contra Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by means of order dated 08.06.2021, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow has withdrawn all money from District Cooperative Bank to the account of District Fund Account. As the petitioner was being paid pension from District Cooperative Bank account, and since no funds remaining, pension of the

¶10

petitioner could not be paid.

¶11

On the basis of instructions received from Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperatives, Kausambi it has been informed to this Court that an amount of Rs.272197/- is admittedly outstanding towards the petitioner toward his pension from July, 2021 to December, 2022. Admittedly, the petitioner is not being paid pension though it seems that subsequently dues for July, 2021 has been disbursed to the petitioner by means of cheque.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the funds from Districts has been transferred to State fund account and it is only because of the said transfer the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are not getting their pension. Accordingly, it has been stated that the petitioners are entitled for pension only from the funds received as commission realized by the Amins and other employees etc. and because collection has been stopped by the order of the State Government no funds are coming to the said account or likely to come till the order is operative and the respondents have not addressed to the basic question in the present case as to how the petitioners and other similarly situated persons will be paid their pension.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that according to the Rule 21-A of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and Others Staff Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2005, which is with regard to the salary for benefits of Kurk Amin, it is provided that in case there is any difficulty in disbursement of salary to such persons, the State Government shall give a matching grant which may be returned back from the amount collected by the collection incharge in the State Treasury.

¶14

He submits that the Rule 21-A of the said Rules, covers the situation as has crept up in the present case. It is stated stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, due to paucity of funds the payment of pension cannot be made to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that the said amounts has been withdrawn from the districts and deposited in the State level accounts. This difficulty can be removed by invoking provisions of Rule 21-A and accordingly, the State Government should provide a grant to the respondents to meet out their pension and other dues and the same would be liable to be refunded in terms of the provisions made in the said Rules.

¶15

In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pass necessary orders of sanctioning grant/money to the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Cooperatives, Lucknow who shall ensure that the petitioners and other similarly situated retired persons are given their pension regularly including arrears. The Registrar-cumCommissioner, Cooperatives, Lucknow shall also ensure that the said grant is paid back in terms of Rule 21 -A.

¶16

Let necessary orders and action be done by the respondents expeditiously, say, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them.

¶17

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Satish

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Manisha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Jai Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Shubham Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Irrigation and Others

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors.