Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Marketing Foreign Trade Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5900 of 2026

Arvind Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Marketing Foreign Trade Others	Deptt. Lko. And 2 .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Shailesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh

¶6

Court No. - 5

¶7

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondent no. 1 and Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount deducted from the Contributory Provident Fund and the entire amount of interest payable on the same have not been paid to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 5019 of 2024, the applicability whereof in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not disputed by the parties. Thus, the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 5019 of 2024 wherein it was held has under:

¶10

"11. A conjoint reading of Section 4 of the Act of 1925 and Regulation 17 of the Regulations of 1978 makes it evident that there is no duty cast upon the subscriber or depositor of the Scheme to make an application for payment of the credit to him whereafter only such payment is required to be made. On the contrary, Section 4 of the Act of 1925 imposes a mandatory duty upon the officer concerned to make payment of the sum standing to the credit of the subscriber when it has become payable.

¶11

12. Regulation 17 also makes a specific provision while casting a duty upon the officer concerned to make payment of the deposit of a subscriber as soon as it has become

¶12

WRIA No. 5900 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

due.

¶15

13. It therefore appears that Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations of 1978 is contrary not only to Regulation 17 of the Regulations of 1978 but also appears to be ultra vires to Section 4 of the Act of 1925. It is quite evident that no such restriction can be made for payment of interest only up to a period of one year from the date of superannuation to a depositor with regard to payment of interest on the amount due to be paid to the subscriber/depositor.

¶16

14. The prohibition for grant of interest on subscriptions by an employee beyond the period of one year from the date of superannuation also amounts to unjust enrichment since the opposite parties have definitely earned interest on such subscriptions ever since it was made and continued to earn such interest on that deposit till the date of actual payment. Therefore it is unreasonable on part of opposite parties to restrict payment of such interest to depositors.

¶17

15. The aforesaid reasoning has also been indicated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Raghuvir Sharma(supra), which has been upheld in Special Appeal.

¶18

16. In view thereof, the impugned orders dated 14.09.2021 and 18.12.2021 being against the mandatory conditions of Section 4 of the Act of 1925 read with Regulation 17 of the Regulations of 1978, are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite party no.2, i.e. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Kisan Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to ensure payment of interest to petitioners on subscriptions to the contributory Provident Fund at the admissible rates from the date of superannuation till the date the sum standing to the credit of the petitioners was actually paid to them.

¶19

17. Aforesaid payment shall be ensured to petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon opposite party no.2."

¶20

In view of aforesaid, the petition is allowed in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar and another versus State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 5019 of 2024.

¶21

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)

¶22

June 5, 2026 Arif

¶23

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

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Marketing Foreign Trade Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Marketing Foreign Trade 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Ashish Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pravesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 3 Others

Yusuf Kamal Khan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Surendra Ram and 6 Others vs Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Thru. Secy., Railway Board, New Delhi and 4 Others

Veer Bhadra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others