Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16543 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3099 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Baiswar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agri. Marketing And Foreign Trade Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra,Rajesh Kumar Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for respondent no. 1 and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 and 3. 2. The petition has been filed seeking following prayer:- "It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make the payment of full amount of CPF as paid by the bank with interest to the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of "Ram Kumar and another versus State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 5019 of 2024", the coordinate Bench of this Court has settled the controversy and the case is squarely covered with the siad judgment. 4. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as follows:- "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. 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 due. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 5. In view of aforesaid, the petition is allowed in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra). Order Date :- 21.3.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench