# Smt. Rahimun-nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 395
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-06
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1337 of 2021
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rahimun-nisha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48779
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 23 -
Begar - Recovery of emolument paid for
extra works done - Permissibility - Held,
if the petitioner's husband rendered work
for 10 months, recovery of emoluments
paid for those extra 10 months of work,
would
amount
to
begar,
which
is
prohibited
under
Article
23
of
the
Constitution - For work already rendered
by an employee and remunerated by the
employers, howsoever wrongly appointed
or permitted to continue, cannot be
recovered for that would be begar, applies
with greater force. (Para 14 and 15)
B. Service Law - Retirement - Pension,
Gratuity and Family Pension - Entitlement
- Petitioner's husband worked 10 months
more service and drawn the salary - Effect
on entitlement of pension - Held, the
authorities need not be multiplied which
emphasize the importance of prompt
settlement and quick disbursement of
post retiral benefits, particularly, pension
and gratuity - This would apply with
equal, if not greater, vigour to the case of
a
surviving
spouse/
widow
of
the
deceased government servant/ employee,
like the case here. (Para 19)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Smt. Rahimun-nisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395
release the entire retiral benefits due to the
petitioner-appellant along with interest @
6% p.a. from the date the same was due till
payment.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 395
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-C No. 1337 of 2021

Smt. Rahimun-nisha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudheer Rana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rahul Pandey

A. Constitution of India - Article 23 -
Begar - Recovery of emolument paid for
extra works done - Permissibility - Held,
if the petitioner's husband rendered work
for 10 months, recovery of emoluments
paid for those extra 10 months of work,
would
amount
to
begar,
which
is
prohibited
under
Article
23
of
the
Constitution - For work already rendered
by an employee and remunerated by the
employers, howsoever wrongly appointed
or permitted to continue, cannot be
recovered for that would be begar, applies
with greater force. (Para 14 and 15)
B. Service Law - Retirement - Pension,
Gratuity and Family Pension - Entitlement
- Petitioner's husband worked 10 months
more service and drawn the salary - Effect
on entitlement of pension - Held, the
authorities need not be multiplied which
emphasize the importance of prompt
settlement and quick disbursement of
post retiral benefits, particularly, pension
and gratuity - This would apply with
equal, if not greater, vigour to the case of
a
surviving
spouse/
widow
of
the
deceased government servant/ employee,
like the case here. (Para 19)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2010 (5) ALJ 554
2. St. of Punjab & ors. Vs Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) & ors.; (2015) 4 SCC 334
3. Thomas Daniel Vs St. of Kerala & ors.; 2022
SCC OnLine SC 536
4. St. of Kerala & ors. Vs M. Padmanabhan Nair;
(1985) 1 SCC 429
5. V. Sukumaran Vs St. of Kerala & anr.; (2020)
8 SCC 106
6. Gorakhpur University & ors. Vs Dr. Shitla
Prasad Nagendra & ors.; (2001) 6 SCC 591
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner is the widow of a
Class-IV employee, who superannuated
from the services of the Nagar Palika
Parishad, Bindki, District Fatehpur, as a
Daftari on 05.01.1995. She has not been
paid the post retiral benefits due on account
of her husband's services, including family
pension till date. This is the case that the
petitioner has come up with before this
Court, praying for the issue of a mandamus
directing the respondents to sanction and
disburse the post retiral benefits due on
account of her husband's services.

2. Heard Mr. Sudheer Rana, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul
Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.4 and Mr. Vimla
Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2
and 3.
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. According to the petitioner, her
husband, Mubarak Hussain, retired as a
Daftari, a Class-IV employee with the
Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki, District
Fatehpur. He retired on 05.01.1995, and
passed away within the course of a year, on
16.12.1995.
His
services
were
acknowledged by the Chairman, Nagar
Palika Parishad, with the Palika, passing a
condolence
resolution
showering
encomiums. Still, the petitioner's post
retiral
benefits
were
not
paid.
The
petitioner says that by the time she
instituted the present writ petition, she had
become a lean and impoverished woman of
81 years, looking forward to the payment
of her husband's post retiral benefits,
including the family pension.

4. There is a letter dated 12.01.1996 on
record from the Commissioner, Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad
addressed
to
the
Collector, Fatehpur concerning the post
retiral benefits due to the petitioner for her
husband's services. This letter seems to have
been written in ignorance of the factum of the
employee's death, because it refers to pension
payable to Mr. Mubarak Hussain, a retired
Daftari. All that it says is that the required
pension papers have not been forwarded by
the Collector to the Commissioner, which
should be made available. It is the petitioner's
case that she has visited the office of the
Nagar Palika Parishad time over again
during all these many years and decades, but
to no avail. It is also averred that the
petitioner is dependent on the meagre income
of her son, who is a married man and works
as a labourer to earn his livelihood. It is
averred in Paragraph No.19 of the writ
petition that there are no dues outstanding
against the petitioner's late husband payable
to the employers, yet the petitioner is being
denied her legitimate rights to pension etc. It
is also pleaded that pension is not a bounty,
as also the other post retiral benefits, which
should come to her after her husband's
demise. She has no source of livelihood and
is on the verge of starvation.

5. There are two counter affidavits,
carrying the respondents' substantial defence,
that is to say, one on behalf of respondent
no.3, the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and
the other on behalf of respondent no.4, the
Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki, Fatehpur
represented by its Executive Officer. The last
affidavit is sworn by the Executive Officer of
the Nagar Palika Parishad.

6. The stand taken in both the counter
affidavits is almost identical. It is not
denied that the petitioner's husband retired
from the post of Daftari, but the date of his
retirement is denied. The Nagar Palika
Parishad say that he retired on 30.09.1994,
whereas the petitioner says that it was
05.01.1995. That date may not be very
material. The defence which the Nagar
Palika Parishad have put forward, amongst
others, in Paragraph No.8 of the counter
affidavit, is that the petitioner's husband has
worked 10 months exceeding the period of
his service, on the basis of something
described as "wrong papers". It is alleged
that he has drawn salary for 10 months
beyond his entitlement to work. As such,
the
Director,
Sthaniya
Nidhi
Lekha
Pariksha Vibhag, U.P., Allahabad vide
Letter No. 2232 dated 04.01.1996 has
raised an objection in this regard. The
Pension Department, presumably of the
Nagar Palika Parishad, required the
petitioner's husband to remove the said
objection, but it is said that he did not offer
any evidence for the purpose.

7. It must be noticed here that the
petitioner's husband, the late Mubarak
Hussain, passed away on 16.12.1995.
8 All. Smt. Rahimun-nisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
Apparently when the Pension Department,
be it of the Nagar Palika Parishad or the
Government, raised some kind of an
objection, on account of the deceased
employee serving 10 months more than his
entitlement, he was not in the mortal world
to answer or remove the said objection. The
widow would have her own limitations in
removing
the
objection,
or
as
the
respondents say, offering evidence to show
that the deceased employee did not, in fact,
work beyond his tenure. There is then a
further stand taken in Paragraph No.16 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
District Magistrate, where it is said that
Mubarak Hussain and the petitioner have
not yet deposited the extra salary that the
deceased employee has drawn for the 10
months of his services rendered beyond
entitlement nor made an application to
adjust the extra salary drawn.

8. The District Magistrate's stand in
the counter affidavit filed on his behalf is
also
substantially
the
same.
It
is
disconcerting to note, however, that while
the Nagar Palika Parishad have blamed
their employee for working 10 months
beyond his entitlement and drawing extra
salary without resolving the issue, the
District
Magistrate
has
been
more
insensitive
and
harsh
in
his
rather
contradictory stand, besides all that is
common. On behalf of the District
Magistrate,
it
has
been
averred
in
Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit that
after the death of Mubarak Hussain, his
wife has received extra payment on the
basis of wrong papers. The relevant
averments read:

"that after death of Sri Mubarak
Hussain, his wife received extra payment
on the basis of wrong papers, but thereafter
she did not deposit the extra payment,
regarding which pension department made
objection. But, the genuine papers could
not produce, did not cooperate to prepare
the pension papers, and also did not
produce papers pertaining to removal of
objection of the pension department, but
misbehaved with the employees of the
Nagar Palika, due to which the pension
paper could not be prepared as per rules,
for which the carelessness and negligence
of late Mubarak Hussain and his wife is
showed."

9. The petitioner, in the rejoinder
affidavit, has denied the stand taken by
both the Nagar Palika Parishad and the
District Magistrate and asserts that she has
been denied her husband's post retiral
benefits.
It
has
particularly
been
emphasized in the rejoinder affidavit that
the respondents have not annexed any
evidence to show that they took any action,
requiring the petitioner to undertake any
formalities for the purpose of payment of
pension and other post retiral benefits. The
assertion that the petitioner did not
cooperate, though the respondents tried to
process the pension papers and the other
post retiral benefits, is without the slightest
evidence
offered
on
behalf
of
the
respondents. There is an averment in
Paragraph No.10 of the rejoinder affidavit
filed on behalf of the petitioner in answer
to the District Magistrate's affidavit, that
whenever she approached the competent
Authorities,
she
was
ill-treated
and
rebuked.

10. This Court has carefully perused
the record and considered the submissions
advanced at the Bar.

11. Besides the remarks about the
stand taken by the respondents, that have
figured earlier, it must be said that the
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents'
stand
is
most
unfair,
unreasonable
and
arbitrary.
The
respondents do not deny the fact that the
petitioner's husband retired from the Nagar
Palika Parishad's employ. They do not
deny the fact that he was a permanent
employee, entitled to payment of post
retiral benefits, including family pension
payable to the petitioner. All that they say
is that the petitioner's husband had worked
10 months more than his entitlement and
drawn salary for that period, which is either
required to be adjusted or deposited. The
petitioner has not done that. The District
Magistrate has gone a step ahead to say that
it is the petitioner who has received extra
payment on the basis of something called,
"wrong papers". It is not known what the
expression "wrong papers" mean. It is
vague,
illusory
and
mystifying.
The
petitioner admittedly has not been paid a
single paisa towards her entitlement on
account of her husband's services and yet
the District Magistrate has taken a
preposterous stand that the petitioner has
received extra payment.

12. The Nagar Palika Parishad, on
the other hand, say more logically that the
petitioner's late husband worked 10 months
beyond his entitlement and drew salary for
those extra months. According to them, that
is the impediment which is required to be
removed in order to entitle the petitioner to
her family pension and payment of all other
post retiral benefits due to her late husband.
If, in fact, the stand of the respondents is
that the petitioner's husband worked
beyond his entitlement and drew salary for
that period, quite apart from the legal
position about the liability to refund such
emoluments, all that the respondents could
have done was to deduct the said sum of
money and pay the petitioner's post retiral
benefits. Her family pension had to be
sanctioned and disbursed. The mere fact
that
the
respondents
think
that
the
petitioner's husband has drawn some extra
emoluments, by working beyond his
entitlement,
would
not
entitle
the
respondents to indefinitely postpone the
payment of the petitioner's family pension
or the post retiral benefits due to her on
account of her husband's services. It must
be remarked here that the respondents' plea
about the petitioner's husband working 10
months beyond his entitlement, is woefully
vague. It has not been indicated by
reference to specific dates as to what,
according to the respondents, was Mubarak
Hussain's date of superannuation and when
he actually retired. It has also not been
indicated as to how and under what
circumstances he could work for the
claimed extra 10 months. There is not the
slightest description of facts and dates
about all things claimed. The respondents
are the establishment, who possess all
service records. They could precisely
indicate in their affidavits the precise
manner in which the petitioner's late
husband
worked
10
months
beyond
entitlement. They could also show as to
who was responsible for those extra 10
months of work that he rendered in the
fourth respondent's employ. Not only are
these particulars about dates and facts
missing, there is not the slightest evidence
to show that the petitioner's husband
worked
an
extra
10
months.
The
respondents could have annexed the
petitioner's husband's service-book and
show when he actually retired; and how it
was beyond his superannuation.

13. The respondents being the
employers, surely, the petitioner's husband
could not have continued unilaterally in
service
beyond
the
date
of
his
superannuation.
The
rather
unrefined
8 All. Smt. Rahimun-nisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
expression "wrong papers" that both the
District Magistrate as well as the Nagar
Palika Parishad have employed in their
affidavits, could be indicated with more
specificity
to
show
what
incorrect
document, if any, the petitioner's husband
produced or used to continue those extra 10
months in the Nagar Palika Parishad's
employment. Not a whisper has been said
about the character of that document, or
who produced it, and how the petitioner's
deceased husband, a mere employee,
utilized it to his advantage.

14. There is another aspect of the
matter. Assuming that by some mistake or
wrong entry of the date of birth of the
petitioner's husband or by some other
means, he continued in service for 10
months
beyond
the
date
of
his
superannuation, for which he received
salary, the same cannot be recovered by the
respondents or made the subject matter of
adjustment. This is for the reason that the
petitioner's husband, according to the
respondents, drew salary for 10 months, but
for work that he actually rendered. If the
petitioner's husband rendered work for 10
months, recovery of emoluments paid for
those extra 10 months of work, would
amount to begar, which is prohibited under
Article 23 of the Constitution. A Division
Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar
Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 2010
(5) ALJ 554 had occasion to consider this
question in the context of a compassionate
appointment, secured by the dependent of a
deceased government servant, about whom
it was revealed that he was temporary and
terminated from service during his lifetime.
The question was that notwithstanding the
appointment secured by fraud being void,
the 10 years' work that the appellant had
rendered in terms of that void appointment,
for which he was remunerated, would
entitle the employers to recover the salary
paid. In this context, it was held by their
Lordships of the Division Bench in Sushil
Kumar Pandey (supra):

"23.
Therefore,
upon
the
aforesaid discussions, we are of the view
that the judgment of the learned Single
Judge does not call for any interference.
However,
we
have
our
reservation
regarding the portion of the order by which
the learned Single Judge has directed for
recovery of salary that was paid to the
appellant. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is undeniably
true that fraud has been played in
obtaining the appointment by the appellant
and it is also true that the said fraud would
have remained undetected if the mother of
the appellant had not applied for family
pension. During this period more than 10
years had elapsed and the authorities
continued to take work from the appellant
and for the services rendered he was
remunerated by salary. Now after 10 years
of service as the appellant has been
dismissed, in such a case, the recovery of
entire salary from the person would be too
severe for the acts and omission on his part
but also the omission and negligence on the
part
of
the
authorities
in
granting
appointment to the appellant, which in the
facts of the case can not be ruled out. Even
otherwise Article 23 of the Constitution of
India prohibits taking of ''Begar'. The
State-respondents having taken work from
the appellant (Sushil Kumar Pandey) for
more then 10 years before the fraud was
detected, cannot be permitted to ask for
refund of the entire salary paid to him as it
would amount to taking of ''Begar' which
the Constitution of India strictly prohibits."

15. The principle that for work done
and remunerated the emoluments paid to a
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person, not at all lawfully appointed or
lawfully entitled to serve, could not be
recovered, was laid down in the extreme
background of an abject fraud. Here, the 10
months of extra work beyond what the
respondents
claim
could
have
been
rendered by the petitioner's husband, is
vague and nondescript. In this background,
the principle that for work already rendered
by an employee and remunerated by the
employers, howsoever wrongly appointed
or permitted to continue, cannot be
recovered for that would be begar, applies
with greater force.

16. It must be clarified that the
principle prohibiting recovery of certain
excess payment made to employees of
certain classes or categories laid down in
State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) and others,
(2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel
v. State of Kerala and others, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 536, is different from
the
one
involved
here
to
the
understanding of this Court. In Rafiq
Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel
(supra), the principle is about prohibiting
recovery of emoluments paid in excess of
entitlement
to
a
certain
class
of
employees, like those in Group-C and
Group-D services or retired employees
etc. made on account of a wrong
calculation or reckoning of entitlement,
to
which
the
employee
has
not
contributed. Here, the principle involved
is about recovery of the emoluments paid
to a person, who has either been retained
without employment or permitted to
continue
in
service
beyond
his
entitlement or tenure. In this case, since
the recovery is of the entire emoluments
paid for the duration of work rendered,
and not some part of the emoluments
paid, the constitutional prohibition of
begar is attracted. It needs hardly be
emphasized that an employee, whose post
retiral benefits, that include pension and
gratuity are withheld on account of
apathy at the hands of the employers,
particularly, State employers, led the
Supreme Court to observe in State of
Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan
Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, thus:

"1. Pension and gratuity are no
longer any bounty to be distributed by the
Government to its employees on their
retirement but have become, under the
decisions of this Court, valuable rights and
property in their hands and any culpable
delay in settlement and disbursement
thereof must be visited with the penalty of
payment of interest at the current market
rate till actual payment.

2. Usually the delay occurs by
reason of non-production of the L.P.C. (last
pay certificate) and the N.L.C. (no liability
certificate)
from
the
concerned
Departments but both these documents
pertain to matters, records whereof would
be
with
the
concerned
Government
Departments. Since the date of retirement
of every Government servant is very much
known in advance we fail to appreciate why
the process of collecting the requisite
information and issuance of these two
documents should not be completed at least
a week before the date of retirement so that
the payment of gratuity amount could be
made to the Government servant on the
date he retires or on the following day and
pension at the expiry of the following
month. The necessity for prompt payment of
the retirement dues to a Government
servant immediately after his retirement
cannot be over-emphasised and it would
not be unreasonable to direct that the
liability to pay penal interest on these dues
at
the
current
market
rate
should
8 All. Smt. Rahimun-nisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
401
commence at the expiry of two months from
the date of retirement."

17. In a slightly different context
about reckoning of the period of service
prior to recruitment against a regular post,
interpreting the service rules for the
purpose of entitlement to pension, the
Supreme Court in V. Sukumaran v. State
of Kerala and another, (2020) 8 SCC 106
emphasized the nature and entitlement to
pension thus:

"1. Pension is succour for
post-retirement period. It is not a
bounty payable at will, but a social
welfare measure as a post-retirement
entitlement to maintain the dignity of
the employee. The appellant has been
claiming his entitlement for the last
almost 13 years but unsuccessfully,
despite having worked with government
departments in various capacities for
about 32 years.

22. We begin by, once again,
emphasising
that
the
pensionary
provisions must be given a liberal
construction
as
a
social
welfare
measure. This does not imply that
something can be given contrary to
rules, but the very basis for grant of
such pension must be kept in mind i.e.
to
facilitate
a
retired
government
employee to live with dignity in his
winter of life and, thus, such benefit
should not be unreasonably denied to
an
employee,
more
so
on
technicalities."

18. The delay in disbursement of
pension and gratuity, which would apply,
in the opinion of this Court, to all post
retiral benefits due to a retired employee or
his surviving spouse, the Supreme Court in
Gorakhpur University and others v. Dr.
Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others,
(2001) 6 SCC 591 held:

"5. We have carefully considered
the submission on behalf of the respective
parties before us. The earlier decision
pertaining to this very University, reported
in S.N. Mathur [(1996) 2 ESC 211 (All)] is
that of a Division Bench, rendered after
considering the principles laid down and
also placing reliance upon the decisions of
this Court reported in R. Kapur [(1994) 6
SCC 589 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1994) 28
ATC 516] which, in turn, relied upon
earlier decisions in State of Kerala v. M.
Padmanabhan Nair [(1985) 1 SCC 429 :
1985 SCC (L&S) 278] and Som Prakash
[(1981) 1 SCC 449 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 200
: AIR 1981 SC 212]. This Court has been
repeatedly emphasizing the position that
pension and gratuity are no longer matters
of any bounty to be distributed by the
Government
but
are
valuable
rights
acquired and property in their hands and
any delay in settlement and disbursement
whereof should be viewed seriously and
dealt with severely by imposing penalty in
the
form
of
payment
of
interest.
Withholding of quarters allotted, while in
service, even after retirement without
vacating the same has been viewed to be
not a valid ground to withhold the
disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such
is the position with reference to amounts
due towards provident fund, which is
rendered immune from attachment and
deduction or adjustment as against any
other dues from the employee. ..........."

19. The authorities need not be
multiplied which emphasize the importance
of
prompt
settlement
and
quick
disbursement of post retiral benefits,
particularly, pension and gratuity. This
would apply with equal, if not greater,
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vigour to the case of a surviving spouse/
widow of the deceased government servant/
employee,
like
the
case
here.
The
petitioner, as already noticed, is living in
penury, though under the Rules, for her
husband's services, she is entitled to
monetary relief in terms of post retiral
benefits. The respondents have resolutely
delayed payment of post retiral benefits due
to the petitioner on account of her
husband's services.

20. In the circumstances, this Court is
of opinion that the respondents must not
only
forthwith
sanction,
release
and
disburse all post retiral benefits due to the
petitioner on account of her deceased
husband's services, but also compensate the
petitioner in costs and by payment of
adequate
interest
on
the
delayed
disbursement of post retiral benefits. It is
made clear that there shall be no deduction
or adjustment out of the post retiral benefits
payable to the petitioner on account of her
husband's services, on ground that her
husband worked for some months beyond
the age of superannuation.

21. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is
issued to the Commissioner, Prayagraj
Division, Prayagraj, the District Magistrate,
Fatehpur and the Nagar Palika Parishad,
Bindki,
Fatehpur
represented
by
its
Executive Officer to ensure between
themselves sanction and disbursement of
the
petitioner's
post
retiral
benefits,
including retirement pension, if any, family
pension, gratuity, general provident fund,
group insurance, besides any other dues
under the rules within six weeks of the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The dues
shall be remitted in such bank account to
the petitioner as she would indicate, upon
the
District
Magistrate,
Fatehpur
ascertaining the relevant particulars from
her or a family member of hers in her
presence, within the aforesaid period of
time. The substantive entitlement of the
petitioner under various heads of postretiral benefits shall carry simple interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
entitlement till payment in the petitioner's
account. The petitioner's family's pension,
current as well as future, shall be paid
regularly. The petitioner shall be entitled to
cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which shall be paid by
the respondent, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Bindki,
District
Fatehpur
separately
through a bank instrument, payable in
account to the petitioner. In the event of
default in payment of costs, upon an
application for the purpose made to the
Registrar General of this Court, the
Registrar General shall cause the costs to
be recovered from the Nagar Palika
Parishad as arrears of land revenue through
the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and
remitted in account to the petitioner.

22. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated
to
the
Commissioner,
Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj, the District
Magistrate, Fatehpur and the Executive
Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki,
Fatehpur by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 402
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-C No. 9511 of 2022

Govind Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents