Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 162257 (ALL)

RAJENDRA PRASAD AND 15 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. URBAN DEVE. DEPTT. LKO AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/10139/2025 · 2025-09-03

Abdul Moin

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10139 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Shri Ankit Singh, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 3. The petitioners, who are all retired employees aged between 63 to 84 years are before this Court, contending that their pension is not being paid regularly rather is being paid in a block of 6 months and the petitioners being all retired employees have no other source of income other than pension so there cannot be any occasion for the pension being paid intermittently to them. 4. On the other hand, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the Jal Nigam states that on account of financial crunch with which the Jal Nigam is seized, it would not be possible to pay regular pension to the petitioners. 5. Thus, it emerges that on account of financial crisis with which the Jal Nigam is seized, regular pension is not being paid to the petitioners. 6. Whether the ground of financial crunch is considered a valid ground for non payment of pension and other retiral dues has already engaged attention of this Court in the Writ A No.7811 of 2024 In Re Shiv Nath Singh & 2 Ors vs State of U.P. & 2 Ors, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.208 of 2025 In Re U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) & Anr vs Shiv Nath Singh & Ors wherein this Court has held that financial crunch cannot be a valid ground for non payment of retiral dues. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ved Prakash Sharma, Umesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rishabh Kapoor Rajendra Prasad And 15 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Deve. Deptt. Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) issued commanding the respondents to make regular payment of pension every month along with D.A. The arrears of pension along with D.A. be paid with admissible interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 3, 2025 Pachhere/- WRIA No. 10139 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench