Dismissed¶14

Rajendra Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugarcane Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2025WRIA/5433/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Provident fund interest; Employees Provident Fund Act, 152; Employees Provident Fund Scheme; Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Raebareli; seasonal retired employees; parity with regular employees; 6.5% interest; interest on delayed payment; circular dated 26.04.2018; nationalized bank deposit; certiorari; mandamus; writ dismissed; no costs; Rajesh Singh Chauhan; Lucknow Bench; 2025:AHC-LKO:30048; Writ A No. 5433 of 2025; Writ A No. 10176 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-1). ¶13

Rajendra Pratap Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugarcane Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30048

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5433 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugarcane Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pashupati Nath Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Paramanand Asthana

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pashupati Nath Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 and Sri Paramanand Asthana, learned counsel for opposite party No.6.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:

¶8

"(i) Issue an Order or Writ in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby setaside/quash letter/order no.132/ सस dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure No.-1) passed by the opposite party no.-6.

¶9

(ii) To issue a Direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp. Party concerned to release the rate of interest on Provident Fund amount of the petitioners for the services rendered by them (from 01.04.1991 to 12.11.2009) at Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Raebareli according to the Employees Provident Fund Act, 152".

¶10

Sri Paramanand Asthana, learned counsel for opposite party No.6 has stated that the petitioners have been paid the entire amount in terms of the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in by this Court in Writ A No.10176 of 2024; Rajendra Pratap Singh and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and others. Sri Asthana has submitted that while arguing the earlier writ petition he had categorically informed the Court that once, in terms of circular dated 26.04.2018 the provident fund account had not been opened by the Samiti, as such, Samiti had deposited the contribution of the petitioners and contribution of the Samiti in a Nationalized Bank. Sri Asthana has further submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners have been paid the interest at the rate of Rs.6.50% on the dues and petitioners have also been paid the aforesaid interest on the delayed payment, therefore, as per Sri Asthana, this petition is misconceived.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the rate of interest has not been properly given to the petitioners inasmuch as the rate of interest varies from 8.25 % to 12% as per Employees Provident Fund Scheme.

¶12

On that Sri Permanand Asthana, has stated that since the petitioners are retired seasonal employee so no trust relating to Employees Provident Fund has been established, as the aforesaid trust has been established only for the regular employee and the petitioners being retired seasonal employees may not claim pairity with the regular employee.

¶13

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order dated 21.11.2024, I find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioners have been given their admissible dues with interest at the rate of Rs.6.5% and also interest on the delayed payment at the rate of Rs.6.5%. The petitioners being seasonal retired employees may not claim pairity with regular employee.

¶14

Therefore, the present petition is misconceived, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶15

No order as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Reena/-

¶17

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugarcane Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugarcane Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Chander Pandey vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication Govt. New Delhi and 2 Others

Rohan Kumar vs C.B.I. / A.C.B. Lko.

Gayatri and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shridhar Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag 4 Lko. and Another

Mohini Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others