# Indra Bahadur Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-02-23
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 99 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indra-bahadur-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43260
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Interestclaimed of 11 months 25 days-delay in
payment of provident fund-initially the
authorities
released
90%
gratuity-but
realizing their mistake as being class IVentitled for full payment-issued cheque
with
incorrect
particulars
of
namesubsequently corrected cheque issuedbeing class 4th employee compelled to rush
up the court on two times-Single Judge
wrongly denied interest-held-entitled for
9% interest from due date to the actual
date of payment within 3 months-in case of
default-12 % interest would be payableappeal allowed.
Held: Para-5 & 6

## Text

144
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. For these reasons, we allow the
special appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 8 October 2013. In consequence,
the writ petition filed by the petitioners
before the learned Single Judge shall
stand dismissed.
13. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Special Appeal No. 99 of 2015
Indra Bahadur Srivastava ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Interestclaimed of 11 months 25 days-delay in
payment of provident fund-initially the
authorities
released
90%
gratuity-but
realizing their mistake as being class IVentitled for full payment-issued cheque
with
incorrect
particulars
of
namesubsequently corrected cheque issuedbeing class 4th employee compelled to rush
up the court on two times-Single Judge
wrongly denied interest-held-entitled for
9% interest from due date to the actual
date of payment within 3 months-in case of
default-12 % interest would be payableappeal allowed.
Held: Para-5 & 6
5. In these circumstances, the claim of
interest was sustainable. The learned
Single Judge has erred in coming to the
conclusion that there was no willful
delay where the facts of the present case
are indicative that there was a clear
dereliction on the part of the officials of
the State.
6.
In these circumstances, we direct that
the
appellant
shall
be
paid
interest
computed at 9% per annum on the
provident fund amount from the due date
until it was actually paid to the appellant.
Since the appellant had already been paid
the provident dues, the interest shall be
payable to him no later than within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order computed at
the rate of 9% per annum as stated above.
In the event of any further delay beyond
the period of three months from the receipt
of a certified copy of this order, the State
shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum until payment is made.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The appellant retired on 31
August 2011 from the post of Meth in the
Irrigation Department. On 18 May 2012,
after retirement of the appellant, a cheque
in the amount of Rs.3,06,052/- was paid
over to him. The cheque was however
drawn in the name of ?Indra Bahadur?
whereas the correct name of the appellant
as in the service record was Indra
Bahadur Srivastava. The cheque was
returned
back
by
the
treasury.
Subsequently, on 5 June 2012, the
appellant moved an application for the
issuance of a fresh cheque in the correct
name of the appellant. Eventually on 22
August 2012, a cheque was issued to the
appellant in the amount of Rs.3,06,052/-.
2. The appellant claimed interest for
the delay of eleven months and twenty
1 All] Indra Bahadur Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
145
five days. But his request was not
considered. Thereafter, in pursuance of an
order passed in an earlier writ petition, the
second respondent rejected the claim on
30 April 2013 which led to the filing of a
writ petition for claiming interest. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition holding that the delay in payment
of the provident fund dues of the
appellant was not willful.
3. The order of the Executive
Engineer in the Irrigation Department
dated 30 April 2013 indicates the factual
position. Initially only 90% of the
provident fund amount was sought to be
released in favour of the appellant.
However, subsequently, the competent
authority
realized
that
a
class-IV
employee was entitled to the release of
the entire provident fund dues and it was
not permissible to withhold a part of the
amount. Subsequently, a cheque was
issued to the appellant but that was not in
the correct name as borne out by the
service record. The appellant was required
to pursue the matter when the cheque was
returned and it was only thereafter that a
fresh cheque was issued. In this process a
period of eleven months and twenty five
days, admittedly, elapsed.
4. The appellant is not at fault and
there is no suggestion to the effect that it
was because of the conduct of the
appellant that the payment was delayed.
There was no inquiry pending against the
appellant nor was there any valid
justification to withhold a portion of the
amount initially. Similarly there was
absolutely no reason or justification for
the State to issue a cheque in the wrong
name, as a result of which encashment of
the amount was delayed. Retiral dues are
not a bounty or charity but constitute an
entitlement. The appellant who was a
class-IV employee was made to move this
Court on two occasions, first for disposal
of his representation for interest and
thereafter against the order denying him
interest.
There
had
been
a
clear
dereliction on the part of the officials of
the State in processing the claim of the
appellant
expeditiously,
firstly
withholding the part of the claim and later
issuing a cheque in the wrong name.
5. In these circumstances, the claim
of interest was sustainable. The learned
Single Judge has erred in coming to the
conclusion that there was no willful delay
where the facts of the present case are
indicative
that
there
was
a
clear
dereliction on the part of the officials of
the State.
6. In these circumstances, we direct
that the appellant shall be paid interest
computed at 9% per annum on the
provident fund amount from the due date
until it was actually paid to the appellant.
Since the appellant had already been paid
the provident dues, the interest shall be
payable to him no later than within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order
computed at the rate of 9% per annum as
stated above. In the event of any further
delay beyond the period of three months
from the receipt of a certified copy of this
order, the State shall pay interest at the
rate of 12% per annum until payment is
made.
7. The impugned judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge shall,
accordingly, stand set aside. The writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of the appellant shall stand
allowed in the aforesaid terms.
146
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. The special appeal stands,
accordingly, allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 119 of 2015
Smt. Ram Shri & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Suresh Singh, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shiv Nath Singh
High Court Rules, Chapter VIII, Rule 5Special Appeal-against order by Single
Judge-direction to pay minimum wages
to daily wages-as payable those daily
wager of other department-now claim
that minimum pay scale as payable to
regular employees of same cadre-heldappointment without following rules of
selection-para 54 of Uma Devi casefurther clarified by Apex Court in Surjeet
Singh case-claim of minimum wages-not
maintainable-appeal dismissed.
Held: Para-9
In this background and in view of the
clear position in law, it would not be
possible for this Court to accept the
contention of the appellants that they
should be allowed the minimum of the
pay scale merely on the basis of certain
directions which were issued in the past.
This Court must be governed by the
principle of law which has been laid
down
in
several
judgments
of
the
Supreme Court noted above. As daily
wage employees, the appellants would
be entitle to receive minimum wages, as
directed by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment. Their claim to
receive
salary
payable
to
regular
employees of the University at the
minimum of the pay scale would not be
maintainable in law.
Case Law discussed:
(2006) 4 SCC 1; Civil Misc. W.P. No. 51066 of
2013; Spl. Appeal D No. 477 of 2010; (2009) 9
SCC 514; [(2014) 4 UPLBEC 3128].
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The appellants are daily wagers in
the employment of the Chandra Shekhar
Azad University of Agriculture and
Technology,
represented
in
these
proceedings by the second and third
respondents. The appellants had filed a
writ petition1 seeking to challenge an
order passed by the third respondent
declining their claim for the payment of
wages at the minimum of the pay scale
admissible to regular employees and a
writ of mandamus for the payment of the
minimum of the pay scale. By the
impugned judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 15 May 2014,
the University has been directed to pay
atleast the minimum wages as prescribed
by the Government. The appellants are in
appeal, seeking a direction for the
payment of the minimum of the pay scale
as admissible to regular employees of the
University.
2. Initially, the appellants filed a
writ petition (Writ - A No. 29214 of
2013), seeking regularization and pay
parity of the minimum wages being paid
to
the
regular
employees
of
the
University. The University resisted the
petition on the ground that there was no
rule for regularization and such a claim