Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34529 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2975 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd Asif Khan And 19 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Kumar Rai Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Prakash, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 9. The petitioner's salary has been withheld on the footing that he had failed to achieve the recovery target. The action is sought to be justified in light of Clause 1(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.2024 issued by the respondent authorities. Clause 1(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.2024 which contemplates disbursal of salary upon achieving the recovery target has been quashed by this Court in the judgement rendered by this Court on 7820 of 2024 (Kamal Krishna Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others) by holding as under: "12. Chapter IV pertains to pay allowances and increment of which Clause 31 of the Regulations 1975 categorically provides that pay and allowances shall accrue from the date of commencement of service of any employee in a cooperative society and shall become payable in the month following the month in which his service was performed. The said pay and allowances have also be made subject to the provisions of the Regulations, 1975. Nowhere in the regulations it is provided that the salary of an employee working in the branch or regional offices would be pegged with the recovery which is to be made by the Bank. Thus, issuance of the office order dated 02.07.2024 pegging the salary of the employees with the recovery to be made would be beyond Clause 31 of the Regulations, 1975. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 02.07.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner is quashed." The contention of the petitioner is that the salary of the petitioner has been withheld on account of failure to achieve the recovery target is in the teeth of the law laid by this Court in Kamal Krishna Mishra (supra). This fact could not be disputed by Shri Ravi Prakash, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 9. Clearly the action of the respondent authorities withholding the salary of the petitioner consequent to failure to achieve the recovery target is in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in Kamal Krishna Mishra (supra). The offending part of the office memorandum dated 02.07.2024 having been thus quashed cannot be enforced. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner as and when it becomes due as per law. The salary of the petitioner which has already been withheld shall also be disbursed forthwith to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Dhananjai Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad