HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5442 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties the matter is being decided finally. 3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 05-10-2024 passed by the respondent no. 3, by which the petitioner has been denied the post retiral dues for which, she is entitled for. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason for non-payment has been indicated as the precarious financial position of the respondent no.3. 5. Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for respondent no.3, states that subsequent thereto certain amounts have been paid to the petitioner yet even now the respondent no.3 is not in a position to pay the entire outstanding amount as due to the petitioner in one installment rather the same are being paid regularly month to month. 6. Once the petitioner was an employee of respondent no.3 and has already retired on 30.09.2022 consequently the ground taken by respondent no.3 in not paying the retiral dues on the ground of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Patel Vibha Saraswat .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dugdha Vikas U.P. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) precarious financial position can not be considered to be a valid ground keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions as well as this Court in 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. Accordingly, it is apparent that the ground as urged by the respondents in not paying the retiral dues cannot be said to be a valid ground in the eyes of law. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 05.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to not making payment to the petitioner on account of precarious financial situation of the respondent no.3. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.3 to make the entire payment of balance outstanding dues to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While making the payment of the dues the respondents shall also consider the payment of interest from the date the said dues became payable till the date of actual payment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would not claim for the promotional benefits after completion of 19 years and 24 years of service at this stage. October 30, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 5442 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench