Anil Kumar Tiwari vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

The affidavit of compliance filed by learned counsel for the respondent duly signed by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Chief Engineer (E-3), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow is taken on record.

¶12

Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶13

On 24.3.2026, following order was passed :-

¶14

1. On 17.03.2026, following order was passed.

¶15

"Even after decision taken in the month of November 2005, except apart GPF and GIS, the other dues, which are payable to the petitioner, have not been paid yet.

¶16

In view of the above, the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, Urban, shall find out as to who is the erring official for not paying the payable dues to the petitioner and also what action has been proposed to be taken against him for the alleged non-payment of the dues.

¶17

List this matter in the next week, in the list of fresh cases."

¶18

2. Shri Risabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6, while placing written instructions duly signed by Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow submits that the due amount has already been transmitted in the Division office, which shall be transmitted in the account of the petitioner. It is also submitted that show cause notice has also been issued to the erring officer, namely, Raj Bahadur, Accountant (Budget Section), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow on 20.03.2026. It is lastly submitted that the due amount will be credited in the account of the petitioner within three days from today.

¶19

The aforesaid written instructions are taken on record.

¶20

WRIA No. 2880 of 2026

¶21

2

¶22

3. List this case on 01.04.2026 within top 10 cases.

¶23

4. By the next date of listing, affidavit of compliance be filed by respondent no. 2, failing which, complete relevant record be placed before this Court by some responsible Officer.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest on the delayed payment and D.A. of Rs.29,000/- have not been paid to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that subject matter related to the D.A. is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. He also submits that department is facing financial crisis, and after receiving fund from the State Government, dues of the petitioner will be immediately paid to the petitioner, therefore, question of delay on the part of the respondent for making payment of the interest on delayed payment does not arise.

¶26

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the petition and material annexed with the affidavit, it is admitted that leave encashment amount of Rs.5,99,040/-, gratuity of amounting Rs.9,88,416/-, G.P.F. of amounting Rs.15,40,420/-, pension arrear of amounting Rs.29,952/and ACP arrear of amounting Rs.82,048/- has already been paid to the petitioner and subject matter related to the D.A. is pending before the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, present petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to move representation related to the prayer of interest on delayed payment before the competent authority within a period of three weeks from today and in case, any representation is moved by the petitioner, same shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks.

¶27

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶28

April 1, 2026

¶29

GauraV/-

¶30

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

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sumbul Jahan Thru. Her Husband Mohd. Afzal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Singh @ Bade Tillu @ Ram Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ram Manohar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

Ankit Khare vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Gaurav Agnihotri vs Idbi Bank Limited Thru. Managing Director and CEO Mumbai and 2 Others

Himanshu @ Hari Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others