Disposed¶19

Ramswaroop Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Service law – Post-retiral dues

Allahabad HC22 May 2026WRIA/4538/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Post-retiral dues; gratuity; leave encashment; ACP arrears; pension January-2026; DA enhancement arrears; bonus; interest @ 7% per annum on default; paucity of funds; mandamus; payment within three months and six months; Writ-A No. 4538 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Rajeev Singh, J.; State of U.P. Urban Development Department; decided May 22, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondents no. 3 and 4 to pay one-fourth of the total outstanding post-retiral dues within three months and the balance within six months; in default, interest @ 7% per annum from the date the amount fell due till actual payment/realization. ¶19

Ramswaroop Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 4538 of 2026

Ramswaroop Goswami

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Mohit Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sriniwas Bajpai

¶8

Court No. - 17

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard the counsel for petitioner, Sri P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶11

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶12

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief:-

¶13

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no. 3 & 4 to expeditiously make / release all admissible post retiral dues i.e. amount of gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of A.C.P., arrears of one month Pension (January-2026), arrears of enhancement D.A. and bonus along with interest @ 8% up to actual date of payment to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

¶14

Mr. Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.3 and 4 fairly states that on account of paucity of funds, the dues have not been paid which shall be paid positively within a period of six months from today. It is further argued that part payment of the 1/4 of the total dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months and the balance shall be paid within a period of six months.

¶15

In view of the fairness of the counsel for respondents no.3 and 4, it is directed that one-fourth of the total outstanding amount to which the

¶16

WRIA No. 4538 of 2026

¶17

¶18

petitioner is entitled shall be paid by the respondents within a period of three months from today and the balance shall be paid within a period of six months. In case the amount is not paid within the time as granted, the respondents no.3 and 4 would be liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum from the date when the amount fell due till actual payment/realization.

¶19

With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶20

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶21

May 22, 2026 Arpan

¶22

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

Ramswaroop Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramswaroop Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirbhay Tiwari @ Nitin Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Ashish Kumar Pandey and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Tahzeeb Aalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Milan vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Krishna Shukla and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others