HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 429 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (Order on C.M.Application No.1 of 2025; Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard Shri Anindya Shastri, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Shishir Chandra, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. 3. The cause shown and the explanation offered in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay are sufficient and are accepted. The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal. (Order on Memo of Special Appeal) 1. Heard Shri Anindya Shastri, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Shishir Chandra, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. A similar appeal bearing Special Appeal Defective No.435 of 2025 has been dismissed on merits yesterday after condoning the delay. The parties are ad idem on this issue. The said judgment reads as under:- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anindya Shastri Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shishir Chandra U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director And Another .....Appellant(s) Syed Kausar Mehadi .....Respondent(s) "(C.M. Application No.1 of 2025- Delay Condonation Application) 1. Heard. 2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condoantion application is sufficient. 3. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal. (Order on Appeal) 4. This is an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging the judgement and order dated 21.8.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 8003 of 2025, by which a direction has been given to the appellants to pay leave encashment to respondent-petitioner with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of retirement till actual payment/realization within a period of three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order. 5. The respondent-petitioner retired on 31.7.2023, but leave encashment was paid to him on 30.10.2025. Interest thereon has not been paid in spite of the judgement of the writ Court dated 21.8.2025, instead it has been challenged. 6. The contention of the appellants' counsel is that the challenge in this appeal to the judgement of the writ Court is confined to the direction to pay interest on leave encashment at the rate of 7% and not anything else. 7. On being asked, learned counsel submitted that firstly, there is no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of such payments. Secondly, the financial condition of the appellant is such that this imposes an unbearable burden, therefore, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside. 8. As regards the contention that there is no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of interest on delayed payment of leave encashment. Firstly, there is also no provision under which this could have been withheld and having withheld the same illegally, there are plethora of judgements where Hon'ble Supreme Court has imposed interest at a rate much higher than what has been imposed by the learned Single Judge where post retiral dues were not paid timely. A money which was due to be paid to the respondent-petitioner SPLAD No. 429 of 2025 2 was kept by the appellants with them, therefore, to say that there is no provision for payment of interest and they would not pay it, is not acceptable. It was certainly not acceptable before a court exercising equitable jurisdiction, when there was no law in favour of the appellants 9. Reliance has been placed upon para 22 of the judgement dated 30.8.2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 620 of 2023 where, in the peculiar facts of the said case, a coordinate Bench set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge for payment of interest at the rate of 7%. Firstly, the said paragraph itself says that it is in peculiar facts of the case. Any direction in peculiar facts of the case is not a binding precedent for a coordinate Bench. 10. In our opinion, imposition of 7% interest rate is quite reasonable in the facts of the case. As regards the financial condition, it is the appellants' own making. It is not the case of the appellants that the existing employees are not getting salary. Why should a retired employee be deprived interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment. This is nothing but an argument in terrorem which is not acceptable. We do not find any merit in the appeal. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. " 3. This appeal is also dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the reasons given therein as the facts and issues are similar. November 13, 2025 -Piyush- SPLAD No. 429 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench