Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1533-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 208 of 2025 Petitioner :- Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam Lko And Another Respondent :- Bheemraj And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Kapoor,Krishna Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment/order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.2135 of 2022 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Claim Petition filed by the respondent No.1. 3. The claim set-up before the Tribunal was against an order dated 23.10.2020 whereby the benefit of A.C.P. granted to respondent No.1 with effect from 22.11.2010 on completion of 26 years of satisfactory service was withdrawn without affording any opportunity to him. The Tribunal while adjudicating upon the Claim Petition in light of the rival contentions put forth by the parties has observed that such an order and issuance of disciplinary proceedings could not be passed by the Competent Authority without affording due opportunity to the respondent employee. It is this order passed by the Tribunal which has come up under challenge in the present writ petition at the instance of petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the Tribunal was satisfied that the opportunity for passing the order dated 23.10.2020 was not afforded to the respondent No.1, in the fitness of things, the Tribunal ought to have remitted back the matter to the department for taking a fresh decision. 5. Having probed the issue a little deeper, this Court finds that the benefit of A.C.P. which was due to the respondent employee on completion of 26 years of service in the year 2010 was accorded to him and for the grant of such a benefit any punishment order passed subsequent thereto had no legal implications. Thus, the opportunity claimed before us in the present writ petition for assailing the impugned judgment on the ground put forth before us is misconceived and does not warrant any further action in the facts and circumstances of the case at the end of the employee i.e. the petitioners. 6. That being the position, we are not convinced to entertain the present writ petition arising out of impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition being bereft of merit is accordingly rejected. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 9.1.2025 -Amit K-/Ram Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench