Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 183761 (ALL)

SMT. SHAFEEQUNNISA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. COOPERATIVE and ORS.

WRIA/36956/2018 · 2025-11-25

Shree Prakash Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 36956 of 2018 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 05.09.2018 by virtue of which the payment of salary was declined for 78 months, on the ground that it was not sought during her husband's lifetime. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor widow lady and as soon as it came into her knowledge that the arrears of salary for 78 months, have not paid to her husband, she made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner and District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, Balrampur for payment, which was rejected on nonest grounds. He submitted that counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent is apparent that vide the order dated 20.02.2019, it was decided by the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative U.P. Lucknow, 'that as per Rule 4 of उ०Š० ŠारिĞभक कृ िष सहकारी ऋण सिमित के ęŝीियत सेवा िनयमावली, 1976 ( hereinafter, referred to as 'Rules 1976'), the respondent no. 6 i.e. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Husinabad Grant, through, its Secretary, is the authority to pay the arrears of salary of the deceased employee(Anwarul Haq) to her wife', the present petitioner, alongwith that, a direction was also made to the Secretary that as per the provision in circular dated 02.12.2003, the arrears of salary of the petitioner's husband be paid. He submitted that because of lethargyness on the part of respondent no. 6, the arrears of salary have not been paid as yet, therefore, submission is that the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by respondent no. 5, may be quashed and respondent no. 6 may be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidhu Bhushan, Abdul Haleem, Rayees Ahmad Khan, Vinita Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Shafeequnnisa .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Cooperative And Ors. .....Respondent(s) directed to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State submits that earlier the order was passed while deciding the representation of the petitioner that the arrears of salary was not sought by the husband of the petitioner, during his lifetime, therefore, it's not payable to the petitioner after death of her husband. He submitted that subsequently an order was passed on 20.02.2019, wherein, the decision was taken by the Commissioner, Cooperative U.P. that under the rule 4 of 1976, respondent no. 6 is under obligation to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner and direction was also given with respect to the payment of the same from the margin deposited in the 'management expenditure account' of the respondent no. 6. Upon considering the submission of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the earlier order was passed on 05.09.2018, which is impugned herein, and subsequently, the same seems to be clarified, vide order dated 20.02.2019, by the higher authority i.e. Commissioner Cooperative COP. This order is apparent that it was found by the authority concerned that the arrears of payment of salary will be paid to the petitioner from the Head i.e. 'Managerial Expenditure Account' of respondent no. 6. It has been pleaded by counsel for the petitioner that the same has not been paid as yet, though, it is payable to the petitioner. In view of above, the order impugned dated 05.09.2018 is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 6 is directed to proceed in accordance with the order dated 20.02.2019 and make the due payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner, within period of three months, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is hereby allowed. November 25, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 36956 of 2018 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench