Rakesh Darbari vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17596 of 2025

Rakesh Darbari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Sonam Nishad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ganesh Datt Mishra

¶7

Court No. - 52

¶8

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

¶9

Heard Ms. Sonam Nishad, Advocate, along with Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.D. Mishra, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, and 3.

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of leave encashment (300 days) along with interest.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 03.1.1987 as Accounts Assistant at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Agra (Now Firozabad Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Bindu Katra, Gwalior Road, District Agra), and has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2019. She has pointed out that petitioner's claim of arrears towards payment of gratuity is pending adjudication in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2492 of 2021; and till date the same has also not been released. She has further contended that the amount of leave encashment has also not been paid and as such she has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the letter dated 15 March 2022 by way of which the respondent no. 3 i.e. Regional Diary Development Officer, Dairy Development U.P., Agra Division, Agra, had directed the respondent no. 4 to release the payment and send an intimation to the office of respondent no. 3; but still the payment has not been made. She has relied upon the judgment dated 13.01.2021 in Service Single No. 922 of 2021 (Ram Raj Singh and 52 others Versus State of U.P. and others) , wherein, a coordinate Bench of this Court has

¶12

WRIA No. 17596 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

held that in case there is no denial towards the liability for making payment of pensionary benefits, the precarious financial condition of the corporation cannot be a ground for delay in payment.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has contended that the cooperative society is facing tremendous financial problems and for the said reason alone the payment of the retirement benefits to many employees, including the petitioner, could not be made.

¶16

It is trite in law that pensionary benefits are not a bounty to be distributed at the sweet will of the employer and the precarious financial condition of the employer is not a valid ground for delaying or not making the payment of pensionary benefits of a superannuated employee. In the case of Kapila Hingorani Versus State of Bihar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1 , it has been specifically held that financial stringency may not be a ground for not issuing requisite directions when a question of violation of fundamental right arises. Furthermore, in D.S. Nakara Versus Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SCC 130, the Apex Court has laid down the ratio that the benefits which accrues to an employee on attaining the age of superannuation is the solemn responsibility of the employer, to make good immediately on his retirement.

¶17

This Court finds that the delay in the payment of any retirement benefit which accrues on account of attaining the age of superannuation, is a factor which is covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioner has served for more than 30 years, and after retirement, the retirement benefits, including leave encashment (300 days), are essential for her survival and for living a life with dignity. Thus, in view of the settled legal position, financial stringency cannot be a ground for denial of such benefits.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has not denied the claim of the petitioner but has highlighted only the financial stringency, in making good the payment towards his entitlement.

¶19

I do not find the said explanation plausible in view of the settled position of law and also in consideration that such benefits are not a bounty which is to be distributed by the employer but the employees are entitled to it as a matter of right, which now has been interpreted to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

WRIA No. 17596 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

Moreover, the respondent no. 3 has already issued a direction to respondent no. 4 to make such a payment and in the said circumstances the denial of same is not only violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner but also an inter-departmental disciplinary issue.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, the respondent no. 4 is directed to release the payment of leave encashment (300 days) alongwith an interest of 6 % per annum to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today, in consideration of the representation dated 14.05.2023. Petitioner is also directed to submit a fresh representation annexing the ledger/account details of leave encashment within one week from today.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

November 21, 2025 K.K. Maurya

¶26

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Darbari v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Darbari v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarnath and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 11 Others

Vihan (Minor) vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Waqf- A1-AULAD vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Geeta and 47 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt. Murti Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pappu vs State of U.P. and Another