HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9508 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned state counsel for opposite party No.1 and Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3, whose power filed today is taken on record. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for making payment of an amount of ₹2,14,401.94, which was deducted as contributory provident fund and paid by the bank to the department. Interest on the aforesaid amount has also been sought. 3. Learned counsel for parties are in agreement that the aforesaid dispute is already covered by judgment and order dated 15th June 2024, passed in writ A No. 5307 of 2014 (Uday Pratap Singh and another versus State of UP and Others) which is in the following manner- " 1.Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Ms. Anita Yadav Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. N.C. Mehrotra learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to make full payment of CPF with interest over the deducted amount of the contributory fund. It is submitted 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. 3. Learned counsel for opposite parties on the basis of instructions does not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh Atul Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy,Dept. Agriculture Marketing And Foreign Trade Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) dispute the said fact. 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 WRIA No. 9508 of 2025 2 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 and another versus State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 5019 of 2024." 4. In view of the aforesaid admission by learned counsel for parties, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15th June 2024. August 26, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 9508 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench