Persistent Non-Compliance with Court Orders Over Service Benefits Invites Cost on State: Allahabad High Court

A Decade of Denial: High Court Penalizes State for Harassing Deceased Employee’s Family

In a stinging rebuke to administrative apathy, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed intra-court appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, upholding a ruling that grants long-overdue service benefits to the legal heir of a deceased government employee. The decision comes after a protracted legal battle involving the late Smt. Shakeela Bano, whose right to retirement benefits was contested by the state for over a decade despite a definitive court judgment in her favor.

The Background of the Dispute

The conflict originated from a dispute over the date of birth of the late Smt. Shakeela Bano, an employee of the Irrigation Department. Although the High Court had already adjudicated the matter in her favor via a judgment on August 26, 2015, the State government failed to implement the court’s directions.

Smt. Bano, who passed away in January 2022, was denied both salary and pension benefits since 2011 on the basis of a disputed seniority/superannuation date. Her son, Mukhtar Ahmad, was forced to carry forward the legal fight to recover the entitlements due to his mother. In March 2025, the Writ Court finally allowed his petitions, ordering the State to treat her date of birth as recorded and provide all post-retiral dues. The State subsequently challenged this in a Special Appeal, which has now been rejected.

The Bench’s Scrutiny: A Systemic Failure

The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. and Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J. expressed deep concern over the State’s conduct. Noting that the 2015 judgment had attained finality, the Court observed that there was no valid reason for the State to disregard the ruling.

"It is an unfortunate case where the government servant has struggled for being continued in service despite a judgment in her favour passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.8.2015 which has attained finality," the court remarked.

The judges observed that the State’s persistent refusal to comply not only caused irreparable financial loss to the deceased employee but also effectively brought her family to a state of "starvation."

Key Observations

• On the State's Liability: "There was absolutely no reason for the State not to extend the benefit of the division Bench judgment dated 26.8.2015 once the same was rendered with due participation of the State for retaining the deceased employee in service."
• On the Impact of Negligence: "The sufferings of the deceased employee who could not receive salary as well as pension ever since 31.10.2011 has truly subjected the family to an immeasurable loss."
• On the Need for Justice: "There is a serious default on the part of the State not to obey the division Bench judgment... which deserves to be compensated in terms of cost."

The Verdict: A Financial Lesson in Compliance

Finding no merit in the State's appeals, the Court officially dismissed them while issuing a strict mandate. Beyond simply upholding the Writ Court’s order for pensionary payments, the Bench imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh upon the State, to be paid to the respondent, Mukhtar Ahmad.

The Court has directed the Irrigation Department to ensure full compliance with the original writ judgment within three months, marking an end to an exhaustive, decade-long struggle for a grieving family. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for government departments regarding the consequences of ignoring judicial mandates in service law matters.