SHAILENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN.SECY. COOPERATIVE LUCKNOW and ORS.
WRIA/7293/2019 · 2025-08-18
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 152106 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 152106 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7293 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari,Gyan Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shireesh Kumar,Vinod Kumar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2 and Shri Shireesh Kumar,
learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 04.12.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the respondents have withheld the leave encashment and security deposit of the petitioner.
3. It is contended that the petitioner namely Shri Shailendra Kumar who was working as General Manger retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016. Subsequently Shri Shailendra Kumar died and has been substituted by his legal heirs as petitioner no. 1/1.
4. The contention is that the order impugned by which the respondents have failed to pay the leave encashment on the ground of pendency of audit objections cannot be considered to be legal ground considering the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs Provincial Co-operative Federation U.P. and another, 2023:AHC-LKO;52188 wherein this Court has held that there is no statutory provisions entitling the respondents to withhold the leave encashment benefits on the ground of audit objections.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 are unable to persuade this Court to take a different view from that
taken in the case of Raj Kumar (supra).
6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
order impugned dated 04.12.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay leave encashment benefit to the petitioner alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.
7. As regards non-payment of security deposit, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to respondent no.3 i.e. the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited, Lucknow for his claim, who will consider the grievance of the petitioner within the aforesaid time period and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and relevant rules.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench