Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 125589 (ALL)

JAY SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COOPERATIVE DEPTT. LKO AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/2436/2025 · 2025-03-03

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12680 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2436 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was working on the post of "kurk amin" since 1987 and retired from service on 30.04.2023. After his retirement the retirement dues was stopped without any order or reason being communicated to the petitioner and consequently he has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to pay arrears of his retirement dues of Rs.6,09,754/-. 3. On the basis of instructions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that due to paucity of funds retirement dues could not be paid to the petitioner. 4. Per contra Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by means of order dated 18.06.2021, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow has withdrawn all money from District Cooperative Bank to the account of District Fund Account. As the petitioner was being paid retirement dues from District Cooperative Bank account, and since no funds remaining, retirement dues of the petitioner could not be paid. 5. On the basis of instructions received from Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, Cooperatives, Bareilly it has been informed to this Court that an amount of Rs.6,09,754/- is admittedly outstanding towards the petitioner for his retirement dues. Admittedly, the petitioner is not being paid retirement dues though it seems that subsequently dues for the year 2023 has been disbursed to the petitioner by means of cheque. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the funds from Districts has been transferred to State fund account and it is only because of the said transfer the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are not getting their retirement dues. Accordingly, it has been stated that the petitioner is entitled for retirement dues only from the funds received as commission realized by the Amins and other employees etc. and because collection has been stopped by the order of the State Government no funds are coming to the said account or likely to come till the order is operative and the respondents have not addressed to the basic question in the present case as to how the petitioners and other similarly situated persons will be paid their retirement dues. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that according to the Rule 21-A of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and Others Staff Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2005, which is with regard to the salary for benefits of Kurk Amin, it is provided that in case there is any difficulty in disbursement of salary to such persons, the State Government shall give a matching grant which may be returned back from the amount collected by the collection incharge in the State Treasury. 8. He submits that the Rule 21-A of the said Rules, covers the situation as has crept up in the present case. It is stated stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, due to paucity of funds the payment of retirement dues cannot be made to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that the said amounts has been withdrawn from the districts and deposited in the State level accounts. This difficulty can be removed by invoking provisions of Rule 21-A and accordingly, the State Government should provide a grant to the respondents to meet out their retirement dues and other dues and the same would be liable to be refunded in terms of the provisions made in the said Rules. 9. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pass necessary orders of sanctioning grant/money to the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Cooperatives, Lucknow who shall ensure that the petitioners and other similarly situated retired persons are given their retirement dues regularly including arrears. The Registrar-cum- Commissioner, Cooperatives, Lucknow shall also ensure that the said grant is paid back in terms of Rule 21 -A. 10. Let necessary orders and action be done by the respondents expeditiously, say, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 3.3.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench