HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9962 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1.Vakalatnama filed today in Court by Sri Ankit Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no .3 be kept on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2, Sri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 3. The petitioners who are all employee of the respondent no. 4 are aggrieved against non payment of their salary since long, details of which amount to approximately Rs. 41,96,522/- and odd. 4. Contention is that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 8850 of 2024 Inre; Gopal Gupta and ors Vs. State of U.P and ors which was decided vide judgment and order dated 01.10.2024, a copy of which is annexure 7 to writ petition leaving it open to the petitioners to submit a representation for the redressal of their grievance which was directed to be decided by the respondents no. 2 & 3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Patel, Sandeep Sharma Gopal Gupta And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prpin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. In pursuance thereof, the representation has been decided vide order dated 10.01.2025, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition. It is contended that a perusal of the same would indicate that the financial position of the respondent no. 4 is precarious and there are various dues of various employees which are still to be paid and that an endevour is being made to increase the business but still the payment of salary as due to the petitioner has not been paid. 6. Responding Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 states that the respondent no. 4 has written to the respondent no. 2 for release of the funds vide letter dated 11.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure 15 to the writ petition so that the payment of salary can been made to the petitioners and others and that the funds have still not been released. Sri Patel further states that as and when funds are released by the respondent no. 2 it is only then that the payment of salary to the petitioners along with arrears would be possible. 7. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioners are all employees of the respondent no. 4. 8. So far as the argument of Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that a letter has been sent to the respondent no. 2 for making available the funds, the same cannot detain the Court inasmuch as it is the internal arrangements between the respondents no. 2 & 4. 9. It is settled proposition of law that lack of funds cannot be considered to be an excuse for non payment of the legitimate dues of its employees. (See:-Shiv Nath and 2 Ors Vs. State of U.P and ors- 2025:AHC-LKO:11886). 10. Considering the aforesaid, it is thus apparent that it is the respondent no. 4 who is duty bound to make payment of salary to the petitioners and other employees and even if the funds are not being sent by the respondent no. 2, the cannot be an excuse or a ground by the respondent no. 4 to escape its liability of WRIA No. 9962 of 2025 2 paying legitimate dues to its employees. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioners along with arrears which payment would be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 2, 2025 Pachhere/- WRIA No. 9962 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench