Ram Dahin Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative and 3 Others

Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8575 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Dahin Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶2The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of arrears of pension with effect from July 2022 till the date of payment along with interest and for payment of regular monthly pension to petitioner.

¶3It has been submitted that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Kurk Amin on Commission basis on 02.03.1981 whereafter he was issued appointment order dated 10.02.2003 in view of Notification under U.P Co-operative Collection Fund and Amins and other Staff Service Rules, 2002 whereafter he superannuated on 31.10.2018 and pension payment order was also issued to him but ever since July, 2022, pension has not been paid to petitioner.

¶4Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendred by this Court in Sushil Kumar Saraswat and 5 others v. State of U.P. & others and seeks similar benefits.

¶5Learned State counsel on the basis of instructions submits that pension could not be paid to petitioner due to paucity of funds.

¶6Learned State counsel on the basis of instructions dated

04.11.2023 submits that lack of funds with the Cooperative Department is on account of the fact that State Government has restrained the department from adopting any coercive measures with regard to recovery of loans below Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) on account of Welfare Schemes of the State Government and therefore since coercive tactics could not be adopted by Cooperative Department, recovery could not be effective resulting in paucity of funds with the department and consequently pensionary benefits could not be made available to the employees of the department.

¶7The controversy, it appears has already been decided by this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Saraswat and 5 others v. State of U.P. & others passed in Writ A No.3052 of 2022 whereby this Court in judgment and order dated 03.02.2023 has rejected the ground for stoppage of pension and direction has been issued to the State Government to pass necessary orders for sanctioning/ grant to the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Cooperative, Lucknow to ensure payment of pension to petitioner of said petition and other similarly situated retired persons including arrears.

¶8It also appears from the aforesaid order that directions have been issued for making payment of pensionary benefits including arrears to all the retired persons of the department. It is admitted that after passing of the order dated 03.02.2023, grant was sanctioned in terms of directions issued and pensionary benefits were made available to all persons who approached this Court.

¶9Since the order dated 03.02.2023 specifically issues a direction to the opposite parties therein for payment of pension along with arrears to all similarly situated retired persons, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have denied pensionary benefits to petitioner and to have made available the said benefits only to those persons who approached this Court. Such a conduct by opposite parties cannot be appreciated particularly in view of specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2023. opposite party no.2 i.e. Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow is directed to adhere the directions issued by this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Saraswat (supra) with regard to payment of pensionary benefits to all similarly situated retired employees of the department.

¶10In view of aforesaid, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.2 to make payment of pensionary benefits dues to petitioner along with arrears with effect from July, 2022. along with continuous monthly payment of same.

¶11Since the ground for withholding payment of pensionary benefits of petitioner is not found to be either in accordance with law or with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is directed that petitioner shall be entitled to payment of interest @ 6% per annum from the date it was due till the date of actual payment.

¶12From the instructions, it is evident that paucity of funds with Cooperative Department is on account of directions issued by the State restraining the Cooperative Department from effecting any coercive measures regarding recovery of loans. Since paucity of funds with department is being alluded to directions issued by the State Government, it is provided that opposite party no.2 may seek sanctioning of grant by the State Government to the Cooperative Department for reimbursement of payments made to the petitioner as also per directions issued in Sushil Kumar Saraswat (supra).

¶13Petition, as such, stands allowed. Order Date :- 17.11.2023 kvg/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench