HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10063 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.3 & 4. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided. 3. A Senior citizen aged about 70 years is before this Court, praying for a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to pay the admitted amount of leave encashment of rupees one lakh forty four thousand and odd, which has still not been paid to him despite the lapse of more than a decade from the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner having retired on 31.08.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated 22.06.2016, which has been issued subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, indicates the dues outstanding and payable to the petitioner, of which the amount of leave encashment has been specified as rupees one lakh forty four thousand and odd. 5. It is contended that despite the respondent-Bank having admitted the aforesaid liability, the same has still not been paid and hence the petition. 6. Responding, Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel appearing on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Neeraj Chaurasiya Kashi Ram .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, states that on account of the precarious financial position of the Bank, it has not been possible to make the payment of the leave encashment to the petitioner. 7. The other argument of Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, is that the Registrar of Societies, vide his order dated 20.01.1997, for the first time required the Bank to take a decision pertaining to leave encashment for employees as per the financial position of the Bank. It is contended that as the financial position of the Bank is not adequate and as such it has been decided not to pay the leave encashment to the employees. 8. Further, he has placed reliance on a Resolution of the Bank dated 13.01.2016 to contend that on account of the precarious financial situation of the Bank, it has been decided not to pay the leave encashment to the retired employees and a decision in this regard for payment would be taken subsequently. 9. The aforesaid argument of Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, for not paying the leave encashment to the petitioner is found to be misconceived, considering the settled position of law that where legitimate dues are payable to employees, the ground of precarious financial situation cannot be taken by the employer. (see Shivnath and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2025 : AHC-LKO : 11886) 10. So far as the order of the Registrar of Societies dated 20.01.1997 is concerned, suffice it to say that once the Bank was required to take a decision pertaining to leave encashment for its employees, and the Bank has consciously taken the decision that leave encashment is due to the petitioner, as emerges from a perusal of the order dated 22.06.2016, consequently, taking the plea of precarious financial position is misconceived and the said ground would be squarely covered by the judgment referred to above. 11. The other aspect of the matter is that the Bank, vide its Resolution dated 13.01.2016, decided not to pay the leave encashment to retired employees. However, the petitioner had retired prior to the said Resolution, i.e., on 31.08.2015, and consequently, WRIA No. 10063 of 2025 2 the said Resolution may not bind the employees who retired before the said Resolution. 12. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. 13. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.3 to pay the leave encashment of rupees one lakh forty four thousand and odd to the petitioner within six weeks. While making the payment, the respondents shall also consider payment of interest for the delayed payment of the leave encashment. September 2, 2025 cks/- WRIA No. 10063 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench