Smt. Murti Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Murti Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondent no.4 (Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, District Bulandshahar) to examine the petitioner's provident fund claim and decide it within four weeks, with liberty to call upon the petitioner to furnish supporting documents; upon adjudication of the claim, the prayer for interest on delayed payment to be decided at the prevalent rate of interest of a nationalized bank.

Issue for consideration

Whether the provident fund deducted from the salary of the petitioner's husband (Late Raj Kumar Gupta) w.e.f. 01.12.1963 to 30.06.1985 was deposited in his provident fund account or paid to him after retirement. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the matter requires enquiry into the factual aspect of the claim, respondent no.4, the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, District Bulandshahar, is to look into the petitioner's claim and take a decision within a period of four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

If any verification is required, the petitioner shall be called upon to furnish documents, if any, in support of her claim.

Key takeaways

Once the claim is adjudicated, the prayer for grant of interest on the delayed payment shall be decided considering the prevalent rate of interest in any nationalized bank.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Provident fund - Non-deposit of deductions - Deductions made from the salary of the petitioner's husband (Late Raj Kumar Gupta), an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, w.e.f. 01.12.1963 to 30.06.1985, alleged to have been neither deposited in his provident fund account nor paid after his retirement in 2003 - Claim raised belatedly on 04.04.2025 with a claim chart - Reliance placed on a letter dated 06.07.2009 concerning a similarly situated employee showing non-deposit from 1984 to 31.12.2005, and on Chand Mohammad vs. State of U.P. (Writ-A No.6963 of 2019) - Held, the matter requires enquiry into factual aspects; respondent no.4, the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, District Bulandshahar, directed to look into the claim and take a decision within four weeks, with liberty to call upon the petitioner to furnish supporting documents; once the claim is adjudicated, the prayer for interest on delayed payment to be decided at the prevalent rate of interest in any nationalized bank - Writ petition disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17579 of 2025

Smt. Murti Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Manoj Kumar Singh : C.S.C., Kirtika Singh

Court No. - 52

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kirtika Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provident fund w.e.f. 01.12.1963 to 30.06.1985, which was deducted from the salary of the petitioner's husband - Late Raj Kumar Gupta, was neither deposited in the provident fund account of the petitioner's husband nor paid after his retirement till date. He has brought attention of the Court to a letter dated 06.07.2009, which pertains to a similarly situated employee of the same Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja; a perusal of which indicates that the provident fund was not deposited from the year 1984 to 31.12.2005.

It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner is also for the same period and as such on the basis of the same, the petitioner contends that the deduction from the salary of the petitioner's husband was made but the same was not deposited in the provident fund account of the petitioner's husband. He has further placed reliance on a judgment dated 10.05.2019 passed in Writ-A No.6963 of 2019 (Chand Mohammad vs. State of U.P. and others) and yet further contended that in a similar manner Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja has also not paid the interest for which certain directions were issued.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that in order to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner the records from the year 1963 to

WRIA No. 17579 of 2025

2

1985 has to be seen and that the petitioner's husband had retired as long back as in the year 2003, but she has only raised a belated claim only on 04.04.2025 along with which petitioner has appended a claim chart.

In view of the aforesaid, since matter requires enquiry into the factual aspect of the claim, I find it appropriate that at the first instance, respondent no.4-The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khurja, District Bulandshahar, may look into the claim of the petitioner and take a decision within a period of four weeks from today; and it is also made clear that in any case certain verification is required, the petitioner shall also be called upon to furnish documents, if any, in support of the claim. It is further provided that once the claim is adjudicated, the prayer for grant of interest on the delayed payment shall also be decided considering the prevalent rate of interest in any nationalized bank.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)

November 21, 2025

S.Prakash

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad