Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30178 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5558 of 2025 Petitioner :- Maiku Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Agriculture Marketing And Foreign Trade Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar Singh,Dibya Deep Srivastava,Yogesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.C. Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel, who has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4, same is taken on record. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (i)- to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties by directing them to make the payment of further interest to the petitioner to the petitioner for period from 01-08- 2024 upto 02-04-2025 on belated payment of Contributory Provident Fund i.e. CPF as it became due on 01-08-2023 on his retirement from service w.e.f. 31.07.2023 but the interest on belated payment of CPF was made only for one year upto 31-07-2024 though the further interest on actual belated payment of CPF Rs. 2,24,528.00 on 02-04-2025. (ii)- to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties by directing them to make the payment of further interest till 02-04-2024 i.e. beyond the period of one year since when the interest on belated payment CPF is actually paid to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid matter is already covered by 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. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties on the basis of instructions does not dispute the said fact. 5. 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." 6. In view of the 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. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench