Allowed¶7

Adya Prasad Pandey and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2025WRIA/8971/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired employees; pension paid in 6-monthly blocks; U.P. Jal Nigam financial crunch; financial crisis not valid ground for withholding retiral dues; writ of mandamus for monthly pension with D.A.; arrears with admissible interest within four weeks; reliance on Shiv Nath Singh (W.A. 7811/2024) affirmed in Special Appeal Defective 208/2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Court No. 4; Writ-A 8971 of 2025; Abdul Moin J.; decided 18.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

Regular monthly payment of pension along with D.A. commanded by writ of mandamus; arrears of pension along with D.A. to be paid with admissible interest within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶7

Adya Prasad Pandey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47986

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8971 of 2025 Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Pandey And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Chandra,Bisen Harshita Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Sri Krishna Vishwakarma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4.

¶6

With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

¶7

The petitioners, who are all retired employees aged between 65 to 72 years are before this Court, contending that their pension is not being paid regularly rather is being paid in a block of 6 months and the petitioners being all retired employees have no other source of income other than pension so there cannot be any occasion for the pension being paid intermittently to them.

¶8

On the other hand, Sri Krishna Vishwakarma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the Jal Nigam states that on account of financial crunch with which the Jal Nigam is seized, it would not be possible to pay regular pension to the petitioners.

¶9

Thus, it emerges that on account of financial crisis with which the Jal Nigam is seized, regular pension is not being paid to the petitioners.

¶10

Whether the ground of financial crunch is considered a valid ground for non payment of pension and other retiral dues has already engaged attention of this Court in the Writ A No.7811 of 2024 In Re Shiv Nath Singh & 2 Ors vs State of U.P. & 2 Ors , as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.208 of 2025 In Re U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) & Anr vs Shiv Nath Singh & Ors wherein this Court has held that financial crunch cannot be a valid ground for non payment of retiral dues.

¶11

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to make regular payment of pension every month along with D.A. The arrears of pension along with D.A. be paid with admissible interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Pachhere/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Adya Prasad Pandey and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adya Prasad Pandey and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 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

Ravi Kant Upadhyay and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 5 Others

Srashti Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 3 Others

Shri Babu Ram Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 Others

Anuj Kumar Panday Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Transport Lko and 5 Others

Arvind Kumar and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others