Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3745 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mukesh Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Pathak,Jyotindra Prakash Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri L. K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Uday Veer Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties No.1 and Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama today, on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 and 3, same is taken on record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to compute/calculate the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 11.10.1994 to 31.12.1996 (rendered on daily wage basis) and 31.12.1996 to 23.03.2007 (while the petitoner was orally terminated) and from 23.03.2007 to 10.11.2023 (while the petitioner had worked on work charge basis) for the purposes of granting pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 & 3 to pay the pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner after calculating the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1994 to 1996 (rendered on daily wage basis) and 1996 to 2007 (while the petitioner was orally terminated) and from 2007 to 10.11.2023 (while the petitioner had worked on work charge basis)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has preferred representation dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure No.1) to the competent authority but to no avail. He has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority, therefore, he may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2 i.e., Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow and a direction may be issued to him to consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner with expedition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection if direction for disposal of the said representation is issued. 5. Therefore, in view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2 i.e., Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow ventilating his grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copy of his earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of fifteen days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if it is so required, with expedition preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith. 6. This writ petition is disposed of, in view of the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench