Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
Prabhu Nath Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam Rural and Others – Respondents
Writ A No. 4333 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of High court to issue writs - Writ petition is filed by petitioner for principal reliefs“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing respondents, mainly respondents no. 1 to ensure payment of al retiral dues of petitioner in reasonable period. (Para 5 and 6).
Finding of the Court: In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent no. 3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him - It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by competent authority in accordance with law.
Result: Writ petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State.
2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following principal reliefs:
(a) Amount of gratuity of Rs. 800,9,76/-
(b) Amount of G.P.F. of Rs. 12,87,427/-
(c) Amount of leave encashment of Rs. 4,65,870/-
(d) Amount of arrear of D.A. and arrear of pension
(e) Interest of 9% from 31.12.2022 to actual payment of abovementioned dues.”
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that grievance of petitioner would be sufficiently met in case representation of petitioner for the said purposes is considered and decided in a time bound manner.
4. Learned standing counsel has no objection to the same.
5. In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no. 3 Executive Engineer Construction Division U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), Mau, raising all his grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexure and all the documents in support of his claim within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.
6. In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent no. 3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.
7. It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by competent authority in accordance with law.
Court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
Paucity of funds cannot be cited as a reason to deny the payment of retiral dues to a retired employee.
Employers are legally bound to settle post-retiral dues promptly upon an employee's retirement.
Enforcement of payment of retiral dues to a retired employee in accordance with specified timeframes.
The right of the petitioner to seek relief through representation to the Competent Authority and the directive for the Competent Authority to consider the grievance sympathetically and take appropria....
The court mandates timely processing and payment of retiral benefits by the authorities while allowing the petitioner to submit necessary representations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
