# Bankey Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 282
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5467 of 2023
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bankey-bihari-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54343
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one month. The same observation was made by Division Bench of this Court in this case of Ashika
Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another reported in 1998(3)
ESC 2006 (All).

18. In view of the provisions contained under Rule 10(5), the appointment of the petitioner
was deemed approved by operation of law, therefore, he is entitled for payment of salary with
effect from 1.12.2006 after taking institution on grant-in-aid list in pursuance to Government Order
issued on 2.12.2006.

19. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner
regularly each and every month with effect from 1.12.2006 on the post of Assistant Teacher.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 282
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 5467 of 2023

Bankey Bihari Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether respondent was justified in withholding the post-retiral dues of the petitioner?
(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the interest on delayed payment of post-retiral dues?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995:
Rules 3(b), 4(k) - The petitioner has prayed for a direction commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to
sanction retiral dues such as pension, leave encashment and gratuity, etc. and has also to pay interest on the
amount of post-retiral dues @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.1998 till the date of actual payment. Further, it
has been prayed that respondent No. 4 be directed to pay 10% of the General Provident Fund to the
petitioner along with interest till the date of actual payment.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.07.2023, directed the respondents to which they have
complied with and therefore, in the changed circumstances, the petitioner has now confined his prayer to
grant of regular pension along with interest w.e.f. 01.03.1998. He also prays for interest on the delayed
payment of leave encashment and gratuity.

Since no departmental proceedings were either initiated or pending against the petitioner, and
no judicial proceedings were pending at the time of his retirement, nor had any orders been
passed by respondent No. 2 under Regulations 351 or 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations,
there was no justification for withholding the petitioner's retiral dues. The respondents ought to
have released pension as well as other retiral dues to which the petitioner was entitled.
3 All. Bankey Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
It is an admitted position between the parties that at the time of retirement in the year 1998, no judicial or
departmental proceedings were pending or even contemplated against the petitioner, and the criminal
proceedings initiated have culminated in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2025
passed in Criminal Case No. 7102205 of 2006, there was no justification for the respondents to withhold the
retiral dues of the petitioner.

B. The provisional pension, which ought to have been made within one month from the date of
retirement in terms of the Rules of 1995, was made at a much belated stage, i.e. vide order
dated 15.01.2009, without any reason or justification.

The U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995, prescribe a specific time
frame u/Rule 3(b) and Rule 4(k) mentioned in the Schedule for various stages. As per the Schedule,
Provisional Pension to an Office Superintendent, like the petitioner, ought to have been sanctioned within one
month from the date of retirement/death. The Payment of Provisional Pension is to be made by the seventh
day of every month, and similarly, Payment of Pension is to be made within one month from the date of
receipt of the payment order. The respondents are directed to pay regular pension to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.03.1998.

C. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its
employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in
disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. As to the rate of
interest on amount of gratuity, in Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is provided that if the
amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the
employer shall pay, from the date on which gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple
interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for
repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may by notification specify.

In view of the precedents and considering the inordinate delay in making payment of post-retiral dues such as
leave encashment, gratuity and regular pension, it is directed that simple interest at the rate of 7% per
annum shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment on the
amounts of regular pension, leave encashment and gratuity, etc. within a period of two months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others,
(2014) 8 SCC 894 (Para 9)
2. State of U.P. and Others Vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 49 (Para 9)
3. S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 44 (Para 9)
4. Mahendra Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2025 (43) LCD 2453 (Para 19)

List of Acts:
 U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995.

List of Keywords:
 regular, pension, post-retiral dues, GPF, leave encashment, gratuity, superannuation, departmental
proceedings, retirement, criminal proceedings, interest.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner(s): Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Tanmay Singh
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Dipak Seth
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to sanction retiral dues such as pension, leave
encashment and gratuity, etc.

3. Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos.
2 and 3 to pay interest on the amount of post-retiral dues @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.1998 till
the date of actual payment.

4. Further, it has been prayed that respondent No. 4 be directed to pay 10% of the General
Provident Fund to the petitioner along with interest till the date of actual payment.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.07.2023, directed the respondents to pay
10% of the remaining GPF to the petitioner upon authorization by respondent No. 4. Payment of
leave encashment was also directed to be made to the petitioner within a period of three months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in compliance of the aforesaid order,
entire leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2023 to the tune of
Rs. 15,558/-. The gratuity amount has also been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 02.09.2023,
and provisional pension had earlier been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2009. The
entire provident fund amount also stands paid to the petitioner with interest. Therefore, in the
changed circumstances, the petitioner has now confined his prayer to grant of regular pension along
with interest w.e.f. 01.03.1998. He also prays for interest on the delayed payment of leave
encashment and gratuity.

6. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the
office of respondent No. 3 on 17.06.1964. After providing satisfactory service and on attaining the
age of superannuation, he retired on 28.02.1998. After his retirement, on 03.03.1998, the
Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow lodged an FIR against the petitioner and
one Kailash Narain Mishra, being Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 under Section 409 IPC at Police
Station Wazir Ganj, Lucknow, alleging that certain documents of Lucknow Mandaliya Vikas
Nigam were missing. It is submitted that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, no departmental
proceedings or judicial proceedings were pending against him, nor were the same contemplated.

7. It is further submitted that only on account of Case Crime No. 74 of 1998, the respondents
arbitrarily withheld the post-retiral dues of the petitioner, and only after interim order passed by
this Court the same have been released. So far as the aforesaid criminal case is concerned, the
petitioner has been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 7102205 of 2006 (State of U.P. vs. Banke Bihari
Lal) vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 1998, a copy
of the same has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit dated 06.01.2026
filed by the petitioner. Against the acquittal order, no appeal has been filed by the State.
3 All. Bankey Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285

8. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to payment of regular pension as well as interest on
the delayed payment of leave encashment, gratuity and pension. In support of his contention,
reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.D. Tewari (Dead)
through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others, (2014)
8 SCC 894; State of U.P. and Others vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 49; and S.K. Dua
vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 44.

9. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit, submitted that a direction
was issued to grant provisional pension to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Rural Development,
U.P., Lucknow vide office letter dated 15.01.2009. It is submitted that since judicial proceedings
arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 were initiated and remained pending against the
petitioner, the retiral dues were not paid in time. However, with regard to the acquittal of the
petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that any appeal has been filed or is pending against
the said judgment.

10. Be that as it may, and considering the fact that it is an admitted position between the
parties that at the time of retirement in the year 1998, no judicial or departmental proceedings were
pending or even contemplated against the petitioner, and the criminal proceedings initiated via
Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 have culminated in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment and order
dated 12.12.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 7102205 of 2006 (State of U.P. vs. Banke Bihari
Lal), there was no justification for the respondents to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner. In
the absence of any departmental inquiry, the respondents ought to have released pension as well as
other retiral dues to which the petitioner was entitled.

11. It is submitted that the U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of
Delay) Rules, 1995, have been framed by the legislature to avoid inconvenience to retired
government employees. The Rules prescribe a specific time frame under Rule 3(b) and Rule 4(k)
mentioned in the Schedule for various stages, like Completion and Verification of the Service
Book, its Review and Removal of deficiencies, Issuance of 'No Dues Certificate', and Forwarding
of Pension Papers etc. As per the Schedule, Provisional Pension to an Office Superintendent, like
the petitioner, ought to have been sanctioned within one month from the date of retirement/death.
The Payment of Provisional Pension is to be made by the seventh day of every month, and
similarly, Payment of Pension is to be made within one month from the date of receipt of the
payment order.

12. This Court has noticed that the provisional pension, which ought to have been made within
one month from the date of retirement in terms of the Rules of 1995 (supra), was made at a much
belated stage, i.e. vide order dated 15.01.2009, without any reason or justification.

13. Since no departmental proceedings were either initiated or pending against the petitioner,
and no judicial proceedings were pending at the time of his retirement, nor had any orders been
passed by respondent No. 2 under Regulations 351 or 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations,
there was no justification for withholding the petitioner's retiral dues.
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to pay regular
pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.1998.

15. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for payment of interest on account of delayed
payment of post-retiral dues is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari
(Dead) through Legal Representatives (supra), in paragraph 6, has held as under:-

"6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31-10-2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the
relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the
erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of
the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled,
therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in
denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the
deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this
Court in the judgment referred [(1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] to supra. We have to
award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity
amount which are to be paid by the respondent."

16. In S.K.Dua (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14 has held as under:-

"14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by
the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If
there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying
on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the
purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory
rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of
the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our
opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our
considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without
issuing notice to the respondents."

17. In Dhirendra Pal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"9. In State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan
Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] , this Court has held that pension and gratuity are
no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but
are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited
with the penalty of payment of interest. In the said case the Court approved 6% p.a. interest on the
amount of pension decreed by the trial court and affirmed [State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair,
1983 SCC OnLine Ker 205 : 1984 KLT 542] by the High Court. As to the rate of interest on
amount of gratuity, in Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is provided that if the
amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section
(3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which gratuity becomes payable to the date on which
3 All. Arun Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287
it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government
from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may by notification
specify. It further provides that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in payment is due to
the fault of the employee, and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling
authority for the delayed payment on this ground. In the present case, there is no plea before us
that the appellants had sought any permission in writing from the controlling authority. As to the
delay on the part of the employee, it has come on the record that he made representations,
whereafter he filed a suit in respect of withheld amount of gratuity and pension. In Y.K. Singla v.
Punjab National Bank [Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank, (2013) 3 SCC 472 : (2013) 1 SCC
(L&S) 640] , this Court, after discussing the issue relating to interest payable on the amount of
gratuity not paid within time, directed that interest @ 8% p.a. shall be paid on the amount of
gratuity."

18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Chauhan vs. State of
U.P. and Others, 2025 (43) LCD 2453, in paragraph 10 has held as under:-

"10. In view of aforesaid discussion, it being evident that impugned order dated
22.06.2023 being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari. A
further writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment
of gratuity and leave encashment to petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified
copy of the order is served upon competent authority. Petitioner is also entitled for interest at the
rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment."

19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
judgment of this Court, and considering the inordinate delay in making payment of post-retiral dues
such as leave encashment, gratuity and regular pension, it is directed that simple interest at the rate
of 7% per annum shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of superannuation till the date of
actual payment on the amounts of regular pension, leave encashment and gratuity, etc. within a
period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 287
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 10291 of 2025

Arun Malik ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration