In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Sitting At Lucknow Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21276-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2025 Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam Rural Thru. Managing Director Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Singh,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajay Kumar Srivastava,1,J. 1. Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on the behalf of respondents, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgement/order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Writ-A No.3048 of 2025 dismissing the writ petition arising out of the recovery of a sum of Rs.3,50,892/- from the gratuity amount payable to the father of the petitioner who was an employee in the Corporation. The gratuity amount was withheld on account of some excess payment made to the deceased-employee due to wrong fixation of his pay in the year 1986. The deceased-employee after retirement from service on Page no.1 of 4 30.09.2013, is stated to have died on 11.07.2018. The post retiral dues payable to the employee remained unpaid particularly the gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,892/-. The petitioner does not appear to have disclosed the names of all the legal heirs of the deceased-employee in the writ petition as a result of which it cannot be inferred as to what amount the petitioner is entitled to in his individual capacity being a legal heir. 4. This is a disputed question of fact which this Court would not go into in this appeal arising out of writ court order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there are three legal heirs left behind by the deceased-employee Late Kedar Yadav who retired from service on 30.09.2013 from a class-IV post. 6. The writ petition instituted by the petitioner in his individual capacity has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was firstly not a government servant and secondly due to unexplained delay in filing the writ petition. The writ court has also appreciated the fact that the deceased-employee had himself not raised any objection against the order of recovery passed on 18.01.2018 though it was well in his knowledge. Page no.2 of 4 7. It is to be noted that the deceased-employee died soon after the passing of the order of recovery on 18.01.2018, therefore, there was hardly any time left with the employee concerned to raise his objection once it is gathered that he was not keeping good health. It is however true that the petitioner before approaching this Court had made no attempt to claim the payable dues which his father late Kedar Yadav was entitled to. 8. Six years of delay in laying the claim is a significant delay and the same had not appropriately been explained in the writ petition. In the matter of delay, it is well settled that the Courts have to adopt a liberal approach so that valuable claim of a person does not suffer merely on account of delay. 9. In the present case however once there were more than one legal representatives, it is obvious under such circumstances that delay may have occurred on account of some unforeseen reasons. In any case, the claim of gratuity share payable to the deceased- employee as per rules ought to have been released soon after the death which has remained unpaid so far. 10. Since the share of the present appellant is not clear and cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court, therefore, we leave all the legal representatives of the deceased-employee namely Late Kedar Yadav at Page no.3 of 4 liberty to make a joint representation before the competent authority within a period of one month from today and in case any such representation in the light of law applicable on the point is made before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation in terms of this order. 11. We may also observe that once the claim is payable by any instrumentality of the State, the writ petition filed by a claimant in individual capacity though not a government servant cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that he was not a government employee. 12. With the observations and directions above, the intra-court appeal is disposed of. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. ) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Shahnaz Page no.4 of 4 Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench