Kashi Ram and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025WRIA/9252/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Irregular/six-monthly block payment of pension; financial crunch not a valid ground for non-payment of retiral dues; mandamus for monthly pension with D.A.; arrears of pension with admissible interest within four weeks; reliance on Shiv Nath Singh, Writ A No.7811 of 2024, affirmed in Special Appeal Defective No.208 of 2025 (U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban)); Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Court No. 4; Abdul Moin, J.; WRIT - A No. 9252 of 2025; decided 19.8.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:48360.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing regular monthly payment of pension with D.A.; arrears of pension with D.A. to be paid with admissible interest within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶¶14

Kashi Ram and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandamus directing regular monthly payment of pension with D.A.; arrears of pension with D.A. to be paid with admissible interest within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the financial crunch faced by the Jal Nigam can justify non-payment/irregular (six-monthly block) payment of pension and other retiral dues to the petitioner-pensioners, entitling them to regular monthly pension with D.A. and arrears with admissible interest.

¶¶9

Court's answer

Financial crunch is not a valid ground for non-payment of pension and other retiral dues; keeping in view the Court's earlier rulings in Writ A No.7811 of 2024 (affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No.208 of 2025), the writ petition is allowed.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to pay the petitioners' pension regularly every month along with D.A.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

Arrears of pension along with D.A. are to be paid with admissible interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pensioners (aged between 62 to 73 years) before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.), complained that their pension, admittedly their only source of income, was being paid irregularly in blocks of six months owing to the financial crunch of the Jal Nigam; counsel for the Jal Nigam acknowledged a backlog despite endeavouring to clear it. Relying on Writ A No.7811 of 2024 (Shiv Nath Singh & 2 Ors vs State of U.P. & 2 Ors) as affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No.208 of 2025 (U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) & Anr vs Shiv Nath Singh & Ors), the Court held that financial crunch cannot be a valid ground for non-payment of pension and other retiral dues. Writ petition allowed (decided 19.8.2025); mandamus issued to pay pension every month regularly with D.A., and arrears of pension with D.A. with admissible interest within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48360

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9252 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Kashi Ram And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Sharma,Umesh Chandra Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶8

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

¶9

The petitioners, who are all pensioners aged between 62 to 73 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 pensioners have no other source of income other than pension so there cannot be any occasion for the pension being paid intermittently to them.

¶10

On the other hand, Sri 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. He also states that regular pension is being paid, but there is a backlog pertaining to the pension and an endeavour has been made to pay the same also.

¶11

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.

¶12

Whether the ground of financial crunch can be considered to be 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

¶13

ground for non payment of retiral dues.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 A. Katiyar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kashi Ram and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashi Ram and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

Khem Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lucknow and Others

Kashi Ram and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Surendra Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education, Lko. and 4 Others