Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5117 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6752 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari,Avinash Singh Vishen,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Shishir Raj,Vinay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 2 & 4 and Shri Virendra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. Instant petition has been field praying for mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the post retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. alongwith admissible interest to the petitioner. 4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation while working as Mohrir on 31.05.2022. While the petitioner was working as Mohrir he was working under the respondent no. 3. 5. After the retirement when retiral dues was not paid, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing the instant petition. 6. Shri Virendra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 had indicated before this Court on 12.10.2022 that there was an audit objection that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with law. The same was removed by the respondent no. 3 and forwarded to the respondent no. 4 i.e. Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly but the respondent no. 4 has not accepted the same. 7. Thus, it is apparent that the matter is pending at the end of respondent no. 4 regarding retiral dues to the petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has argued on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 more particularly paragraph no. 11 that while the petitioner was working in the Office of Nagar Palika, Dehradun, an application for appointment against the vacant post of Mohrrir in Nagar Nigam, Bareilly was given by him. He was, thereafter, appointed in Nagar Nigam, Bareilly but there was no provision in the Government Orders in filling the post of Mohrir through direct recruitment and consequently the appointment of the petitioner directly on the post of Mohrir in Nagar Nigam, Bareilly is irregular/invalid. 9. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit, is unable to indicate as to whether the appointment of the petitioner has itself been terminated and disciplinary proceedings have been taken against the petitioner either while he was in service or even after his retirement on account of his appointment being found to be irregular. 10. Considering the aforesaid, thus, it is apparent that there is no legal impediment on the basis of which the respondents have withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay entire retiral dues of the petitioner in accordance with law and rules provided there is no other legal impediment. 12. Let the retiral dues be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. While making payment of retiral dues, the respondents shall also consider the payment of interest on the delayed payment of the retiral dues. Order Date :- 27.1.2025/Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench