BRIJESH KUMAR YADAV v. U.P. JAL NIGAM RURAL THRU. MANAGING DIRECTOR LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/3048/2025 · 2025-03-21
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 129073 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 129073 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16409 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3048 of 2025 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Aditya Mohan, Advocate on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, and Shri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents. This petition seeks the quashing of the order of recovery from gratuity dated 18.1.2018, passed by opposite party no. 2 without issuing any notice or giving an opportunity of hearing. Upon a specific query made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, considering the fact that the petitioner is not even a government servant and that the father of the petitioner, who was the government servant, passed away in 2018, and during his lifetime, he had not raised any objection to the recovery and the recovery has already been effected, no satisfactory reply has been given by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable as he was not an employee of the department. It is further submitted that the late father of the petitioner never raised any objection against the impugned recovery order. He further submits that the writ petition has been filed after a delay of more than six years, therefore, the writ petition suffers from unexplained laches and is liable to be dismissed.
Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, and the fact that the writ petition has been filed after delay of several years without explaining the delay and laches, coupled with the fact that the late father of the petitioner, who was the employee of the department, never raised any objection against the impugned recovery
order, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench