Vindeshwari Shukla Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11162

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2934 of 2024

Petitioner :- Vindeshwari Shukla Respondent :- Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.N. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted that husband of the petitioner, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Shukla was appointed on 14.2.1987 on daily wage basis on the post of Helper (class IV) in Cooperative Department. Subsequently he was selected for a regular post of Helper on 7.10.1989. He was subsequently transferred to the office of District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Uttar Pradesh, District Sitapur on 9.7.1992 where his services were regularized by means of order dated 20.12.1996 with effect from 1.8.1993. It is further stated that husband of the petitioner died in harness on 12.2.2022. Despite the fact that he had completed the qualifying period of service for pension and all the services dues which should have been paid by the respondents but even after repeatedly approaching the respondents the petitioner was not paid the amount of gratuity, pension and leave encasement. It is for the aforesaid grievance that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay gratuity, family pension, leave encashment, insurance and other post retiral dues which were to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner.

¶8

In the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.4 i.e. Joint Director (Pension), Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow a query has been raised as to whether the services of the petitioner was regularized or not. It is for this reason it seems that the respondents are not proceeding to pay pension and other services dues to the petitioner. It is in this regard that a letter dated 29.12.2023 has been written to the petitioner by opposite party No.4 asking the petitioner to produce certain government orders pertaining to the date of regularization of the husband of the petitioner.

¶9

Learned Standing counsel has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it seems that the

¶11

petitioner was working on class IV post and suffered from illness and unfortunately died on 12.2.2022 though he was due to retire on 31.7.2025. The order of regularization of the petitioner ( Sthaayee ) dated 20.10.1996 has been placed on record indicating that the services of the husband of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 1.8.1993. Once the services of the husband of the petitioner has been regularized he became due member of services and entitled for the service benefits which a regular government servant is entitled to. We see no reason as to why the respondents are not proceeding to process the post retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner

¶12

This Court is of the opinion that post-retiral dues or pension are not a bounty but right of the government servant who has worked tirelessly for the Government and is applicable to such an employee as an outcome of the rule position. I also take note of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Gujarat Vs.Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel , Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1109 of 2022. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken cognizance on the fact that the petitioner therein had worked for 30 years on adhoc basis and the State of Gujarat had denied the payment of pension, and has held as under:-

¶13

"the State cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand."

¶14

The query made by the Joint Director (Pension)- opposite party No.4 from the petitioner is clearly arbitrary and extremely unfortunate as a person of the level of Joint Director has issued a letter to a widow of the deceased government servant asking for relevant government orders. All these government orders are in public domain and it is the responsibility of such senior officers to be aware of the government orders at the time when they are passing necessary orders. This clearly shows the intention and procrastination of the decision making process pertaining to payment of pension to the widow of the deceased government servant, which is deprecated. Once the services of husband of the petitioner has been regularized she is fully entitled to all the services dues and this aspect of the matter has not been denied in the counter affidavit.

¶15

In light of the above, we find that the petitioner is fully entitled and eligible for being granted the post retiral dues. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶16

A direction is issued to opposite party No.s 1 and 4 to ensure that necessary action including preparation of pension payment order is taken and all the dues are paid to the petitioner, expeditiously, but not later than two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before them.

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 20.2.2025

¶19

RKM.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vindeshwari Shukla v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindeshwari Shukla v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lko. and 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranjana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare and 4 Others

Vidhya Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Dheeraj Savita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko and 2 Others

Sub Inspector ( Civil Police) Sanjai Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Grah Police Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Forest Lko. and 5 Others

Brijesh Pandey @ Brijesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others