Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2846 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 204 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ayodhya Prasad Soni Respondent :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Managing Director And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mrinal Tripathi,Birendra Narain Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Akhilesh Pratap, learned counsel for opposite party no.5. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned to sanction post retiral benefits from Provident Fund of petitioner for the period 06.03.1979 till 05.12.1995. Second prayer for a direction to concerned authority for counting entire period of service from 06.03.1979 till 30.09.2011 and for payment of service benefits, in view thereof, alongwith arrears and interest has also been sought with third prayer pertaining to revision of pay and retirement benefits of petitioner, as per recommendations of 6th Pay Commission alongwith arrears and interest. 3. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 to 4 has submitted that petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2011 and therefore the relief claimed is highly time barred. He has also submitted that earlier as well petitioner had filed writ petition bearing Service Single No.3917 of 2012 (Ayodhya Prasad Soni versus M.D. U.P.S.R.T.C. Terhi Kothi Lucknow & Others) in which similar nature of prayer was made. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2012 on the ground of delay in claiming benefits. It is therefore submitted that the present petition would also be liable to be dismissed in terms of dismissal of the earlier writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has refuted aforesaid submissions with the submission that in the present writ petition, petitioner is restricting his relief for payment of Provident Fund to which petitioner, even otherwise, has an entitlement and on the basis of instructions seeks to not press prayer no.2. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that earlier writ petition pertained to entire service benefits including arrears of salary to petitioner from period of earlier suspension as well. The judgment and order dated 26.07.2012 also makes it apparent that petitioner was terminated earlier from service on 07.07.1995 but his appeal there against was allowed in part vide order dated 22.11.1995, whereby petitioner was reinstated in service with immediate effect but was held not to be entitled to any financial benefits and remaining salary for the period of suspension would be forfeited. The judgment indicates that the order dated 22.11.1995 was not challenged before any forum and thereafter, the petition was filed after 17 years. The basic premise for rejecting the aforesaid petition was that order dated 22.11.1995 was not challenged by petitioner. 6. In the present case, petitioner has restricted his prayer for payment of Provident Fund which as per the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which may be a statutory right of petitioner, which may be payable to him without any reference or representation being made by him. 7. Due to the aforesaid difference in the nature of prayer sought in the earlier writ petition and the present writ petition, it is held that the present writ petition would be maintainable without being barred in terms of judgment and order dated 26.07.2012. 8. In view thereof, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation in the prescribed format before the concerned authority with regard to payment of Provident Fund. The same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. In case petitioner is found entitled for the same, actual payment thereof shall be ensured within a period of six weeks thereafter. The aspect of payment of interest upon arrears shall also be considered. This order has been passed only on account of the fact that petitioner has restricted his prayer only for the purposes of payment of Provident Fund. 9. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench