Sant Lal vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to release all the pending dues of the petitioner, such as amount of gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance etc., expeditiously or within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to make payment of regular pension to the petitioner forthwith and also to make payment pension expeditiously or within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to make payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment, at the current market rate, from the due date till the actual date of payment.

¶14

iv. Issue a writ order or direction in any nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶15

WRIA No. 4346 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

v. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

¶18

This matter was heard by this Court on 30.06.2026 and following order was passed;-

¶19

"1. It transpires from the record of this writ petition that post retiral dues of the petitioner had been sanctioned but the said dues have not been paid till date though petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation had retired on 30.11.2025.

¶20

2. Learned counsel representing the Respondents seeks time to take instructions.

¶21

3. Time prayed for is granted.

¶22

4. Put up tomorrow i.e. 01.05.2026 in the the list of fresh cases.

¶23

5. It is made clear that if no plausible explanation comes before this Court, then this Court will proceed to fix responsibility on the erring officer for non-payment of post retiral dues. "

¶24

Today, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that due to financial constraints with U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow payment of certain post retiral dues of the petitioner could not be made but the Jal Nigam is in the process to clear off the post retiral dues very soon. He has further submitted that the respondents shall do their best efforts to clear off all admissible post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of three months. He has also placed before this Court an order dated 30.04.2026, according to which, an amount of Rs.42,260/- has been sanctioned for payment of pension for the month of December, 2025. The order dated 30.04.2026 is taken on record.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that there is no dispute on the part of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled for post retiral dues and he has not been paid certain dues till date. I also find that counsel for the respondents has requested that some time may be granted by this Court so that the respondents may be able to clear off the outstanding dues of the petitioner.

¶26

In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a

¶27

WRIA No. 4346 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

direction to Respondent No. 2 to clear off all post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

¶30

May 1, 2026 akhilesh/-

¶31

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sant Lal v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Lal 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

Ashish Gupta and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Beena Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Lalta Prasad Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sugar Industry Cane Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Chandra Shekhar Prasad Tiwari vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Kuldeep Verma vs Indian Bank Govt. of India Undertaking Thru. Chairman Corporate Office Tamil Nadu and 3 Others

Satendra Kumar Tiwari vs H.R. Head Fresenius Kabi India Pvt. Ltd. and Another