# Dr. Harihar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 929
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59785 of 2010
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Virendra Vikram Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-harihar-upadhyay-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42225
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India,Article 226-interest
for delay-in payment of arrears of salaryunreasonable delay of 10 years in
payment
of
Rs.
1,55,000
and
Rs.
8,34000/-delay of 4 years-unexplained
delay-held-petitioner entitled for 10 %
interest payable within four month-in
case of default 18 % per annum shall be
paid.

Held: Para 6

In the absence of there being adequate
explanation for the delay in payment of
amount due to the petitioner, we are of
the view that this writ petition deserves
to be allowed and the petitioner would
be entitled to payment of interest for the
delayed period in view of the fact that
the petitioner has been un-necessarily
dragged into litigation and he was
compelled to file several petitions also
before this Court as well as before the
Tribunal and it was only then that
payments were made and that too
without interest and without there being
any reason for delay in payment.

## Text

2 All] Dr. Harihar Upadhyay V. State of U.P. and others
929
Board.
Statutory
regulation
framed
under the Act of 1948 would only
operate in case no recognition is sought
by the Institution run by the Board from
the State Government.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, the writ
petitions are allowed. Impugned orders
are hereby quashed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59785 of 2010

Dr. Harihar Upadhyay

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Pandey
Sri J.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India,Article 226-interest
for delay-in payment of arrears of salaryunreasonable delay of 10 years in
payment
of
Rs.
1,55,000
and
Rs.
8,34000/-delay of 4 years-unexplained
delay-held-petitioner entitled for 10 %
interest payable within four month-in
case of default 18 % per annum shall be
paid.

Held: Para 6

In the absence of there being adequate
explanation for the delay in payment of
amount due to the petitioner, we are of
the view that this writ petition deserves
to be allowed and the petitioner would
be entitled to payment of interest for the
delayed period in view of the fact that
the petitioner has been un-necessarily
dragged into litigation and he was
compelled to file several petitions also
before this Court as well as before the
Tribunal and it was only then that
payments were made and that too
without interest and without there being
any reason for delay in payment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This is an unfortunate case where
a retired employee has to run from pillar
to post for payment of the amount for
which he is entitled to be paid. After
several round of litigation, the petitioner
has been paid the amount but with much
delay and, thus, this writ petition has
been filed with a prayer for a direction to
the respondents to pay interest at the rate
of 18% per annum for the delayed
payment.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are
that the petitioner, who is a medical
officer in the Ayurvedic Department of
the State, was placed under suspension
on
9.4.1996
in
contemplation
of
departmental enquiry. The said order of
suspension
was
challenged
by
the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.16103 of
1996 in which interim order was passed
on 6.5.1996, staying the suspension of
the petitioner. Despite that the petitioner
was neither reinstated in service nor paid
his salary. It was only on 4.6.1998, the
State Government took a decision to
reinstate the petitioner in service but a
censure entry was given to the petitioner.
It was further stipulated in the order of
reinstatement that the decision with
regard to payment of difference of salary
and the suspension allowance would be
taken separately. When no decision was
taken by the respondents for payment of
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
difference of salary for the period of
suspension, the petitioner was compelled
to file another Writ Petition No.31404 of
1998 and it was only after directions
were passed in the aforesaid writ petition
that the State Government took a
decision
on
29.6.2002
directing
forfeiting the remaining salary for the
period of his suspension. The said order
was challenged by the petitioner before
the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal
in Claim Petition No.579 of 2003, which
was allowed and the orders dated
4.6.1998 and 29.6.2002 were quashed
and a specific direction was given to the
respondents
to
pay
salary
to
the
petitioner
for
the
period
of
his
suspension.
In
the
meantime,
the
petitioner had retired on 31.1.2005.

3. Despite the order of this Court
passed in the writ petitions as well as the
order passed by the Tribunal, when
payments
were
not
made
to
the
petitioner, he was compelled to initiate
contempt proceeding. Not only this, the
petitioner was also not given the benefit
of merger of 50% Dearness Allowance in
the basic pay and even though the basic
pay of other government servants was refixed on such basis but such benefit was
denied to the petitioner.

4. Petitioner was then compelled to
file another Writ Petition No.25167 of
2008, which was disposed of on
21.5.2008 with a direction to decide the
representation of the petitioner in respect
of his claim. When no decision was
taken, the petitioner had to file another
Contempt Petition No.3723 of 2008 in
which on 24.10.2008, the respondents
were granted two months further time to
comply with the direction of this Court.
When no orders were passed, the
petitioner was compelled to file another
Contempt Petition No.1576 of 2009 in
which notices were issued by this Court
on 5.5.2009. It was only after the
aforesaid rigorous exercise has been
made by the petitioner and repeated
directions have been issued to the
respondents by this Court as well as the
Tribunal in writ jurisdiction as well as
contempt jurisdiction, the petitioner was
ultimately
paid
the
difference
of
Dearness
Allowance
amounting
to
Rs.8,34,000/- in December, 2009 which
was due to be paid to him in the year
2005. The amount of difference i.e. Rs.1,
55,000/- of suspension allowance and the
salary which was due to be paid in the
year 1998, was paid to him in the year
2008. Such position is not denied in the
counter affidavit in as much as, in
paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is
admitted that "the major part of the
amount has been released in favour of
the petitioner in the year 2009."

5. In the counter affidavit, the main
thrust of the respondents is that payment
has already been made to the petitioner.
The question in this petition is not with
regard to payment, which the petitioner
has himself accepted in the writ petition
itself but it is with regard to delay in
payment
to
the
petitioner.
No
explanation whatsoever has been given
by the respondents in the counter
affidavit as for what reason such delay
was caused.

6. In the absence of there being
adequate explanation for the delay in
payment of amount due to the petitioner,
we are of the view that this writ petition
deserves to be allowed and the petitioner
would be entitled to payment of interest
for the delayed period in view of the fact
2 All] Pramod Chandra Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
931
that
the
petitioner
has
been
unnecessarily dragged into litigation and he
was compelled to file several petitions
also before this Court as well as before
the Tribunal and it was only then that
payments were made and that too
without interest and without there being
any reason for delay in payment.

7. In view of aforesaid fact, we
allow the writ petition and direct the
respondents to pay interest at the rate of
10% on the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- for
a period of 10 years (delay being from
1998 to 2008) and the same interest at
the rate of 10% on the amount of
Rs.8,34,000/- for a period of four years
(delay being from 2005 to 2009). Such
payment shall be made to the petitioner
within a period of four months from
today, failing which respondents shall be
liable to pay interest at the rate of 18%
per annum instead of 15% per annum.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Court No. 41055 of 2011

Pramod Chandra Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.B. Singh
Sri Manish Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi

Constitution of India, Article 226-writ
petition-against
'U.P.
Ganna
Kishan
Sansthan'-whether
maintainable-held-
'Yes'-'Sansthan' being within definition
of instrumentality of state-under Article
12 of Constitution-Writ maintainable.

Held: Para 5

A preliminary objection was raised that a
writ petition would not lie in the matter
of dispute relating to Sansthan which is
a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act. This Court finds answer
to this query in a Full Bench judgment in
Radhey Shyam Rai Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2005(3) UPLBEC 2549 wherein
U.P. Ganna Kisan Sansthan has been
held an instrumentality of State and,
therefore, a "State" within Article 12 of
the
Constitution
and
hence a
writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution would be maintainable. In
para 40 of the judgment the Full Bench
has concluded as under:
Case law discussed:
2005 (3) UPLBEC 2549; Writ Petition No.
9690 of 2010, Bhopal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others, decided on 23.02.2010; 2011 All.
C.J. 1752

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, since pleadings
are complete, the Court has proceeded
to decide this matter finally under the
Rules of this Court at this stage.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to
the present dispute are that petitioner
was working as Senior Assistant-cumAccountant in Ganna Kisan Sansthan
Training
Centre,
Gorakhpur
and
completed 58 years of age in August,
2011. The Assistant Director, Ganna
Kisan Sansthan, Gorakhpur, resondent