Disposed

Shiv Kant Verma v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026WRIA/11572/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired ITI Ltd. employees sought interest on leave encashment paid after five years' delay; their representations were rejected on limitation grounds via printed proforma orders despite earlier directions. The court held there was no limitation bar and directed the Unit Head, ITI Mankapur Gonda, to take a fresh decision on 7% interest in light of Ashok Kumar Shukla within six weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shiv Kant Verma vs Union of India Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 11572 of 2024

Shiv Kant Verma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Communication, New Delhi And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhay Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., Dwijendra Mishra

¶9

Along with :

¶10

1. Writ - A No. 11573 of 2024: Sunil Kumar Versus Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 others 2. Writ - A No. 11591 of 2024: Tapas Kumar Gowswami Versus Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 others 3. Writ - A No. 11623 of 2024: Kunj Behari Yadav Versus Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication New Delhi and 2 others 4. Writ - A No. 2447 of 2025: Surender Singh Bisht Versus Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt of India New Delhi and 2 others 5. Writ - A No. 2659 of 2025: Ram Rati Devi Versus U.O.I Thru. its Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 others 6. Writ - A No. 7335 of 2025: Awadhesh Singh Versus Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications, Ministry of Comm. New Delhi and 2 others 7. Writ - A No. 7376 of 2025: Madhuri Singh Versus

¶11

WRIA No. 11572 of 2024

¶12

¶13

U.O.I. Thru. its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications New Delhi and 2 others

¶14

8. Writ - A No. 3038 of 2026:

¶15

Ashok Kumar Gupta

¶16

Versus

¶17

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 others

¶18

Court No. - 17

¶19

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶21

The present petitions are filed with the following prayer :-

¶22

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 to the extent whereby the opposite party no.3 refuse to give the amount of interest to the petitioners on the delayed payment of the amount of privileged leave encashment.

¶23

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 3 to make payment of amount of interest upon the delayed amount of privileged leave encashment to the petitioners with effect from the date it become due i.e. the date of retirements of the petitioners from the actual payment of with update interest 7% up till the date of actual payment.

¶24

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions are being decided by a common order.

¶25

The petitioners were working at I.T.I. Ltd., Gonda, U.P. and after attaining the age of superannuation they were retired and after retirement, privilege leave encashment was not paid to the petitioners and thereafter, same was paid after about five years delay but no interest on delayed payment have been given to the petitioners. He further submits that petitioners preferred writ petitions and these writ petitions were disposed of with the direction to the authorities to consider and decide in terms of law laid down by this Court in Writ A No.2075 of 2023 "Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors.",

¶26

WRIA No. 11572 of 2024

¶27

¶28

which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.72 of 2024 as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.7939 of 2024.

¶29

Learned counsels for the petitioners submits that on the printed proforma only by filling the name of individuals and mentioning the writ numbers the representations were rejected on the ground that claim was not raised on the interest on delayed payment of leave encashment within time, therefore, it is barred by law of limitation. They further submits that there is no barring provision related to the limitation and responsible officer failed to consider the directions of this Court as there was a direction that case of individual may be considered by considering the law laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar Shukla (supra), which was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶30

Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the competent authority but he does not dispute this fact that on a printed proforma only name of individual as well as writ petition and date of judgment is mentioned.

¶31

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and going through the contents of the petitions as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that every petitioner filed different writ petition, which were disposed of by giving liberty to the authorities to take decision for payment of interest @ 7% on the delayed payment of leave encashment in the light of case of Ashok Kumar Shukla (supra) but the competent authority failed to take decision, as the decision was taken on different footing and there is no barring provisions for limitation on claiming the interest and the printed proforma orders were passed.

¶32

In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of and the Unit Head, I.T.I., Mankapur Gonda is directed to take fresh decision with regard to the interest @ 7% p.a. on the delayed payment of leave encashment in the light of law laid down by this Court in Writ A No.2075 of 2023 "Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India", which

¶33

WRIA No. 11572 of 2024

¶34

¶35

was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of service of order.

¶36

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶37

April 1, 2026

¶38

GauraV/-

¶39

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Kant Verma v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shiv Kant Verma v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gulhasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jai Prakash Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Legislative Section-I Lko. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Jauhari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Harish Kumar Awasthi vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Managing Director / Chairman Lko. and 4 Others