# Smt. Kusum Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 903
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-13
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 6048 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kusum-lata-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53464
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Service Law - Leave Encashment - Delay
in Payment - Retiral Dues as Property -
Petitioner retired on 31.03.2018 as Assistant
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Teacher - Leave encashment dues not released
till 25.04.2024 despite repeated representations
- Respondents pleaded absence of provision for
interest - Validity.

Held: Retiral dues constitute property under
Article 300A of the Constitution - Delay of six
years in release of leave encashment unjustified
- Even in absence of statutory provision,
employee entitled to interest in equity under
Articles 14, 19 & 21 - As per S.K. Dua, interest
payable on delayed retiral benefits - Direction
issued for payment of interest @6% p.a. from
retirement till actual payment within three
months, failing which penal compensation @
₹100 per day also payable.

Writ Petition allowed in part.

List of Cases cited:

S.K. Dua Vs St. of Har. & anr., (2008) 3 SCC 44

## Text

5 All. Smt. Kusum Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
position of law as to when such post -
disposal miscellaneous applications can be
entertained after a matter is disposed of.
This Court has become functus officio and
does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an
application after the appeal was disposed
of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench
of this Court on 31.08.2020 through a
course beyond that specified in the statute.
This is not an application for correcting
any clerical or arithmetical error. Neither
it is an application for extension of time. A
post disposal application for modification
and clarification of the order of disposal
shall lie only in rare cases, where the order
passed by this Court is executory in nature
and the directions of the Court may become
impossible to be implemented because of
subsequent events or developments. The
factual background of this Application does
not fit into that description."

28. This law has also subsequently
been followed in the case of Ajay Kumar
Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3677.

29. Undoubtedly, in the final order
dated 24.5.2024 passed in Writ A No. 3505
of 2024, there is no direction for payment
of interest on the delayed payment of
gratuity as the matter was remitted back to
the respondent no. 5 to consider and decide
the matter with respect to the amount of Rs.
26,897/- against the gratuity amount. The
prayer for payment of interest on the
gratuity amount in all senses, are the
substantial prayer.

30. It is apt to say that this Court after
passing the order has become functus
officio and does not retain the jurisdiction
to entertain an application for substantially
decided issues. In fact this is modification
application and not an application for
correction or any clerical or arithmetic
error or application for extension of time,
therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the modification application would
substantially and majorly change the nature
of the order dated 24.05.2024.

31. Hence, this Court finds force in
the objection made by counsel for the
opposite
parties
regarding
the
maintainability
of
the
modification
application.

32. Resultantly, the modification
application is dismissed on the ground of
maintainability.

33. Needless to say that the remedy of
filing review petition is always open to the
petitioner.

34. Consigned to records.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 6048 of 2024

Smt. Kusum Lata Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - Leave Encashment - Delay
in Payment - Retiral Dues as Property -
Petitioner retired on 31.03.2018 as Assistant
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Teacher - Leave encashment dues not released
till 25.04.2024 despite repeated representations
- Respondents pleaded absence of provision for
interest - Validity.

Held: Retiral dues constitute property under
Article 300A of the Constitution - Delay of six
years in release of leave encashment unjustified
- Even in absence of statutory provision,
employee entitled to interest in equity under
Articles 14, 19 & 21 - As per S.K. Dua, interest
payable on delayed retiral benefits - Direction
issued for payment of interest @6% p.a. from
retirement till actual payment within three
months, failing which penal compensation @
₹100 per day also payable.

Writ Petition allowed in part.

List of Cases cited:

S.K. Dua Vs St. of Har. & anr., (2008) 3 SCC 44

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

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

2. The present writ petition has been
filed with the following prayers :-

"1:- Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to forthwith
sanction and disburse the amount of
encashment of Earn Leave, which has been
fallen due to petitioner on the date of her
superannuation
i.e.
31/03/2018,
with
interest at the rate of 18% from the date of
entitlement till date of actual payment.

2:- Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to decide the
representation dated 14/03/2024 (Annexure
No. 2 to writ petition) of petitioner, within
stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble
Court."

3. On 23.4.2024 this Court has passed
the following order :-

"The Director, Directorate of
Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow, the
Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region
Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur and the District
Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur will show
cause by their own affidavits why the
petitioner's dues on account of leave
encashment have not been paid to her till
date. The petitioner was an Assistant
Teacher, L.T. Grade in the Government
Girls Inter College, Gorakhpur and retired
on 31.03.2018 from A.D. Government Girls
Inter College, Gorakhpur upon attaining
the age of superannuation.

Prima facie, there is no reason
why the petitioner's dues on account of
earned leave encashment should not have
been paid. Cause shall be shown by each of
the three respondents bearing that in mind.

Lay as fresh on 02.05.2024.

Let this order be communicated
to the Director, Directorate of Secondary
Education, U.P., Lucknow through the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, the
Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region
Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur and the District
Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur through
the
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division),
Gorakhpur by the Registrar (Compliance)
within 24 hours."

4. In pursuance thereof, personal
affidavit of the Director of Education was
filed before this Court and on 2.5.2024 this
Court has passed the following order :-

"Personal affidavits on behalf of
respondent nos. 2, 3and 4 has been filed by
Mr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned
5 All. Smt. Kusum Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905
Standing Counsel in Court today. Let these
affidavit be taken on record and numbered
by the Office.

In paragraph no. 6 of the
affidavit filed by the Director of Secondary
Education, U.P. Prayagraj/Lucknow, it is
averred:

"6. That in furtherance of the
aforesaid leave encashment sanction order
dated 25.04.2024, the Finance ad Account
Officer (Secondary Education), Gorakhpur
has on 27.04.2024 credited the amount of
Rs. 2,01,600/- in the saving Bank account
of petitioner vide Token No. 3224332066."

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner does not dispute the fact that a
sum of Rs. 2,01,600/- has been credited to
his account towards leave encashment, but
says that it has been paid without interest.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner presses her claim to award of
interest on the delayed payment of leave
encashment.

Treating the personal affidavits
filed today in Court to be counter
affidavits, this petition is admitted.

Learned Standing Counsel may
file a further counter affidavit on the issue
why interest be not awarded. The said
affidavit shall be filed, within two weeks.

List for orders on 17.05.2023."

5. In compliance to the order dated
2.5.2024, affidavit has been filed by
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent-State on 15.5.2024 stating that
there is no provision for providing interest
on the delayed payment of the leave
encashment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner had retired on
31.3.2018 from the post of Assistant
Teacher in A.D. Government Girls Inter
College, Gorakhpur and the payment in
respect of the leave encashment of the
petitioner was not paid, as a result of the
same the writ petition was filed wherein on
the direction of this Court the respondents
on the order dated 23.4.2024 of this Court
has released the leave encashment amount
in favour of the petitioner which was
received on 25.4.2024. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that there is
an extraordinary delay in releasing the
leave encashment amount which has
resulted loss to the petitioner and no
explanation has been forwarded.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-State submits that there is no
provision for payment of interest and as
such interest has not been granted.

8. It is to be seen that petitioner being
an employee and after retirement is entitled
for all retiral dues within time. In the
present case although the petitioner had
retired on 31.3.2018, however, leave
encashment dues have been released on
25.4.2024 i.e. almost after six years.

9. It is further to be seen that retiral
dues of the employees are the property of
the employee under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India and unexplained delay
on the part of the respondents for releasing
the
dues
is
neither
acceptable
nor
permissible in law. In equity, the employee
is entitled for interest on the delayed
payment as per the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in S.K. Dua Vs. State of
Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44.

"11. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the
appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is
not in dispute by and between the parties
that the appellant retired from service on
June 30, 1998. It is also un-disputed that at
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the time of retirement from service, the
appellant had completed more than three
decades in Government Service. Obviously,
therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits
in accordance with law. True it is that
certain charge- sheets/ show cause notices
were issued against him and the appellant
was called upon to show cause why
disciplinary proceedings should not be
initiated against him. It is, however, the
case of the appellant that all those actions
had been taken at the instance of Mr.
Quraishi against whom serious allegations
of mal- practices and mis-conduct had been
levelled by the appellant which resulted in
removal of Mr. Quraishi from the post of
Secretary,
Irrigation.
The
said
Mr.
Quraishi then became Principal Secretary
to
the
Chief
Minister.
Immediately
thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the
appellant and proceedings were initiated
against him. The fact remains that
proceedings were finally dropped and all
retiral benefits were extended to the
appellant. But it also cannot be denied that
those benefits were given to the appellant
after four years. 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 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."

10. It is further to be seen that no
explanation
has
been
given by
the
respondents as to why there was delay in
payment of the leave encashment dues.
Once there is no justification, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of
retirement of the petitioner till the date of
actual payment. The aforesaid interest shall
be paid by respondent no. 2 within a period
of three months from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. If the
amount is not paid within said period, then
the petitioner would be entitled to penal
compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per
day
in
addition
to
interest
abovementioned.

11.

With
the
aforesaid
observation/direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 906
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 17029 of 2013

Smt. Maya ...Petitioner
Versus
Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Baghpat & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: