Krishna Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Cooperative) Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37384

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6739 of 2025

Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Cooperative) Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajrangi Lal Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of arrears of pension with effect from March, 2024 till date and payment of further regular pension.

¶8

It has been submitted that petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.01.2021 from post of Amin Sahyogi and although pension has been paid up-till February,2024 but not thereafter despite fact that there is no enquiry or anything adverse against petitioner. He has also referred to judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in WRIT - A No. - 4682 of 2025 (Shambhu Sahai Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others).

¶9

Learned State counsel on the basis of written instructions dated 02.06.2025, a copy of which is taken on record, submits that payment of pension could not be made to petitioner on account of paucity of funds and that such payment would be made as soon as funds are available on account of recoveries to be effected from creditors.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner was appointed on substantive basis with opposite parties and has superannuated from service without any dues indicated against him or even departmental enquiry being pending against him. It is also admitted that earlier pension has

¶11

been paid to petitioner till February, 2024. The only ground taken for non-payment of pension thereafter is paucity of funds.

¶12

It is settled law that pension is a substantive right of employee as per statute and Rules framed thereunder and it is not a bounty to be disbursed at sweet will of opposite party. The aspect of paucity of funds with department cannot be a ground to withhold pensionary benefits due to an pensioner. The same analogy has also been indicated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Shambhu Sahai Srivastava(supra).

¶13

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ground for non-payment of pension to petitioner taken by opposite parties is clearly untenable and unwarranted.

¶14

In view thereof, opposite party no.3 i.e. Assistant Commissioner-cum-Assistant Registrar,(Co-operative), Lakhimpur Kheri and other relevant parties are directed to ensure payment of arrears of pension to petitioner within a period of two months from today. Regular pensionary benefits to petitioner every month shall also be ensured by opposite parties. In case arrears of pension are not made available to petitioner within aforesaid time-frame, the arrears of dues shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶15

With aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 kvg/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Krishna Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Cooperative) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Cooperative) Lko. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rahul Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Jai Ram Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 6 Others

Rishi Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Ainuddin and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 6 Others