# Ram Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 92
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-08
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5019 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52341
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Provident Funds Act,
1925 - Section 4 - UP Rajya Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Parishad
Contributory
Provident Fund Regulations, 1978 - Reg.
6(4) & 17 - Reg. 6(4) restrict payment of
interest on the Provident Fund Scheme
only for a period of one year - Validity
challenged
-
Doctrine
of
unjust
enrichment - Applicability - Held, Reg.
6(4) of the Regulations of 1978 is contrary
not
only
to
Regulation
17
of
the
Regulations of 1978 but also appears to
be ultra vires to Section 4 of the Act of
1925 - No such restriction can be made
for payment of interest only up to a period
of
one
year
from
the
date
of
superannuation to a depositor with regard
to payment of interest on the amount due
to be paid to the subscriber/depositor -
The prohibition for grant of interest on
subscriptions by an employee beyond the
period of one year from the date of
superannuation also amounts to unjust
enrichment. (Para 13 and 14)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
willing to conduct any departmental inquiry
against the petitioner, the same may be
conducted and concluded strictly, in
accordance with law but with expedition.
Such inquiry may be conducted, if it is so
required, from the stage of issuance of
charge-sheet.

15. There will be no order as to
costs.

16. The Senior Registrar of this
Court shall intimate this order to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, U.P.
and Consolidation Commissioner within 3
working days of its compliance.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 92
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 5019 of 2024

Ram Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Jitendra Singh, Abhinav Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Naresh Chandra Mehrotra

A. Service Law - Provident Funds Act,
1925 - Section 4 - UP Rajya Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Parishad
Contributory
Provident Fund Regulations, 1978 - Reg.
6(4) & 17 - Reg. 6(4) restrict payment of
interest on the Provident Fund Scheme
only for a period of one year - Validity
challenged
-
Doctrine
of
unjust
enrichment - Applicability - Held, Reg.
6(4) of the Regulations of 1978 is contrary
not
only
to
Regulation
17
of
the
Regulations of 1978 but also appears to
be ultra vires to Section 4 of the Act of
1925 - No such restriction can be made
for payment of interest only up to a period
of
one
year
from
the
date
of
superannuation to a depositor with regard
to payment of interest on the amount due
to be paid to the subscriber/depositor -
The prohibition for grant of interest on
subscriptions by an employee beyond the
period of one year from the date of
superannuation also amounts to unjust
enrichment. (Para 13 and 14)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioners, learned State Counsel for
opposite party no.1 and Mr. N. C.
Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite
parties 2 to 4.

2.

Petition
has
been
filed
challenging orders dated 14.09.2021 and
18.12.2021 whereby payment of interest
due upon petitioners' contribution to
Provident Fund has been restricted to a
period of one year only from the date of
superannuation.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners
has
submitted
that
petitioners
superannuated from service on 31.12.2015
and 30.09.2016 respectively whereafter in
terms of Section 4 of Provident Funds Act,
1925(hereinafter referred to as the Act of
1925),
it
was
incumbent
upon
the
authorities
concerned
to
have
made
payment along with due interest on the
contribution
under
Provident
Fund
Scheme. It is submitted that impugned
orders have placed reliance on Regulation
6(4) of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad Contributory Provident Fund
7 All. Ram Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
93
Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to
as the Regulations of 1978) to restrict
payment of interest on the aforesaid
Scheme only for a period of one year.
Learned
counsel
for
petitioners
has
thereafter
adverted
to
the
fact
that
Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations of 1978
itself places reliance on Regulation 17 of
the Regulations of 1978, which in turn
places reliance on Section 4 of the Act of
1925.

4. He has also placed reliance on
judgment and order dated 01.10.2021
rendered by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition no.14528(S/S) of
2021, Raghuvir Sharma v. State of U.P. and
others to submit that aforesaid judgment
clearly indicates that it is unjustified and
inequitable to keep the earned interest on
the deposits by the Mandi Parishad. It is
submitted that the aforesaid judgment was
challenged in Special Appeal No. 359 of
2022 which was dismissed vide judgment
and order dated 16.12.2023, which has
attained finality. It is therefore submitted
that restriction of payment of interest to
only one year is contrary to Section 4 of the
Act of 1925 read with Regulation 17 of the
Regulations of 1978.

5. Learned counsel appearing for
opposite parties 2 to 4 has refuted the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for petitioners with the submission that in
terms
of
the
specific
provisions
of
Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations of
1978, opposite parties were entitled to
restrict payment of interest for a period of
one year from the date of petitioners'
retirement as delay in payment occasioned
on
their
account
since
they
made
applications for payment of Provident Fund
only
on
06.04.2017
and
15.01.2019
respectively
although
they
had
superannuated
on
31.12.2015
and
28.09.2016 respectively. It is therefore
submitted that it is in view of specific
provisions in the Regulations of 1978 that
the impugned order has been passed.

6.

Upon
consideration
of
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perusal of material on
record particularly the impugned order, it is
evident that payment of interest
to
petitioners has been restricted for the
period of one year only from the date of
superannuation
placing
reliance
on
Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations of 1978
while holding that delay in payment was
only on account of the petitioners.

7. It is quite evident that
Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations of 1978
is subject to Regulation 17 of the said
Regulations, which in turn is subject to
Section 4 of the Act of 1925. It is therefore
the statutory provisions of the Act of 1925
which would prevail in such circumstances.

8. The provisions of Section 4 of
the Act of 1925 pertains to repayments and
mandates that when the sum standing to the
credit of any subscriber or depositor, or
balance thereof after making authorised
deduction, has become payable, the officer
whose duty it is to make the payment shall
pay the sum or balance to the subscriber or
depositor.

9. Relevant provisions of Section 4
of the Act of 1925 reads as follows:-

 "
4.
Provisions
regarding
repayments. - (1) When under the rules of
any Government or Railway Provident
Fund the sum standing to the credit of any
subscriber or depositor, or the balance
thereof after the making of any deduction
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorised by this Act, has become
payable, the officer whose duty it is to make
the payment shall pay the sum or balance,
as the case may be, to the subscriber, or
depositor, or, if he is dead, shall-

(a) ......

(b) ......

(c) ......

(2) ......"

10. Regulations 6(4) and 17
respectively of Regulations of 1978 reads
as follows:-

 ^^6 & 1⁄411⁄2 & & & & &

1⁄421⁄2 & & & & &

1⁄431⁄2 & & & & &

1⁄441⁄2 fdlh O;fDr dks] ftls fofu;e 17 ds
v/khu ns; /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS] ml
/kujkf'k ij Hkqxrku izkf/kd`r fd;s tkus okys ekg ds
iwoZorhZ ekg ds vUr rd C;kt Hkh fn;k tk;sxk%
izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;fn fofu;e 17 ds v/khu visf{kr
lc izdkj ls iw.kZ vkosnu i= vH;fFkZr /kujkf'k ds ns;
gksus ds fnukad ls 6 ekg ds ckn izLrqr dh tkrh gS
rks C;kt Hkqxrku izkf/kd`r fd;s tkus okys ekg ds
iwoZorhZ ekg ds vUr dk] vFkok /kujkf'k ns; gksus ds
ekg ds vuqorhZ ekg ls 12 ekg rd dk] tks Hkh vof/k
de gks] fn;k tk;sxk flok; ,sls ekeyksa ds ftuesa
funs'kd dk lek/kku dj fn;k tk; fd mDr vkosnu
i= izLrqr djus es foyEc mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa es gqvk
ftu ij vkosnudrkZ dk dksbZ fu;a=.k ugha Fkk rks ,sls
ekeyksa esa bl izfrcU/kkRed [k.M ds
 izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksaxsA^^

^^17 & Hkqxrku & 1⁄411⁄2 tc vfHknkrk ds
uke fuf/k es tek /kujkf'k vFkok fofu;e 16 ds v/khu
fdlh dVkSrh ds i'pkr~] mldk vo'ks"k ns; gks tk;
rks ys[kk vf/kdkjh dk ;g drZO; gksxk fd] viuk
lek/kku dj ysus ij fd mDr fofu;e ds v/khu dksbZ
dVkSrh djus ds funsZ'k ugh fn;s x;s gS] izkfoMs.V
Q.Ml~ ,DV] 1925 dh /kkjk 4 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj
Hkqxrku djsaA
 1⁄421⁄2 ;fn dksbZ O;fDr ftls bu fofu;eksa ds
v/khu dksbZ /kujkf'k ns; gS] ikxy gks ftldh lEifRr
ds fy, bf.M;u ywuslh ,DV] 1912 ds vUrxZr
izcU/kd fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks] rks Hkqxrku ,sls izcU/kd
dks fd;k tk;sxk] u fd ikxy dksA

1⁄431⁄2 dksbZ O;fDr tks bl fofu;e ds
vUrxZr Hkqxrku ds fy, nkok djuk pkgs] funs'kd dks
bl gsrq fyf[kr vkosnu i= nsxkA Hkqxrku dsoy Hkkjr
esa fd;k tk;sxkA ftu O;fDr;ksa dks /kujkf'k ns; gks]
Hkkjr esa Hkqxrku izkIr djus fy;s viuk Lo;a izcU/k
djsaxsA

fVIi.kh & 1 & fuf/k esa vfHknkrk ds uke
tek /kujkf'k fofu;e 15 ds vUrxZr ns; gks tkus ij
ys[kk vf/kdkjh vfHknkrk ds uke fuf/k es tek ml
/kujkf'k dk 'kh?kz Hkqxrku izkf/kd`r djsxk ftlds
lEcU/k esa dksbZ fookn ;k lUnsg u gks rFkk 'ks"k
/kujkf'k dk lek;kstu Hkh ;Fkk'kD; 'kh?kz djsxkA

1⁄421⁄2 /kujkf'k ds Hkqxrku ds fy;s mi;qDr
fu/kkZfjr izi= 2 esa vkosnu i= fn;k tk;sxkA

1⁄431⁄2 /kujkf'k ds ns; gks tkus dh frfFk ls
C;kt ds lEcU/k esa dqN izfrcU/k ykxw gksrs gS ftuds
lEcU/k esa fofu;e 6 voyksduh; gSA^^

11. A conjoint reading of Section 4
of the Act of 1925 and Regulation 17 of
the Regulations of 1978 makes it evident
that there is no duty cast upon the
subscriber or depositor of the Scheme to
make an application for payment of the
credit to him whereafter only such payment
is required to be made. On the contrary,
Section 4 of the Act of 1925 imposes a
mandatory duty upon the officer concerned
to make payment of the sum standing to
the credit of the subscriber when it has
become payable.

12. Regulation 17 also makes a
specific provision while casting a duty
upon the officer concerned to make
payment of the deposit of a subscriber as
soon as it has become due.

13. It therefore appears that
Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations of 1978
is contrary not only to Regulation 17 of the
Regulations of 1978 but also appears to be
ultra vires to Section 4 of the Act of 1925.
It is quite evident that no such restriction
can be made for payment of interest only
up to a period of one year from the date of
superannuation to a depositor with regard
7 All. Dinesh Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
95
to payment of interest on the amount due to
be paid to the subscriber/depositor.

14. The prohibition for grant of
interest on subscriptions by an employee
beyond the period of one year from the date
of superannuation also amounts to unjust
enrichment since the opposite parties have
definitely
earned
interest
on
such
subscriptions ever since it was made and
continued to earn such interest on that
deposit till the date of actual payment.
Therefore it is unreasonable on part of
opposite parties to restrict payment of such
interest to depositors.

15. The aforesaid reasoning has
also been indicated by a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Raghuvir Sharma(supra),
which has been upheld in Special Appeal.

16.

In
view
thereof,
the
impugned orders dated 14.09.2021 and
18.12.2021 being against the mandatory
conditions of Section 4 of the Act of 1925
read
with
Regulation
17
of
the
Regulations of 1978, are hereby quashed
by issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of
Mandamus
is
issued
commanding
opposite party no.2, i.e. Director, Rajya
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Kisan
Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow to ensure payment of interest to
petitioners
on
subscriptions
to
the
contributory
Provident Fund
at
the
admissible
rates
from
the
date
of
superannuation till the date the sum
standing to the credit of the petitioners
was actually paid to them.

17. Aforesaid payment shall be
ensured to petitioners within a period of six
weeks from the date a certified copy of this
order is served upon opposite party no.2.
18. Resultantly, the petition
succeeds and is allowed at the admission
stage itself. The parties to bear their own
costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 95
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ A No. 5033 of 2024

Dinesh Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shyam Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Financial Handbook -
Volume II, Part II-IV - Rule 54 (2), 54 (3),
54 (4) & 73 - ReinStatement after
dismissal - Principle of 'No work No pay' -
Applicability - Petitioner was dismissed
from service by disciplinary authority on
09.01.2020,
but
was
subsequently
exonerated by appellate authority on
04.09.2020
holding
the
petitioner
innocent - Applying the principle of 'No
work no pay', the petitioner was refused
to
pay
salary
from
09.01.2020
to
29.09.2020 - Validity challenged - No
delay was caused by the petitioner in
submitting explanation or in filing appeal
- Effect - Held, it is not the case of the
respondents
that
the
petitioner
was
earning
through
any
employment
elsewhere for the period he was out of
service. Thus, the petitioner can not be
denied his salary by invoking Rule 54(8) -
By virtue of Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the
petitioner is entitled to full pay and
allowances
for
the
period
between