Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47033 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8629 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vibhor Kumar Saxena Respondent :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Vashu Deo Mishra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Vasu Deo Mishra learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 6 while power on behalf of opposite party No.7 has been filed by Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra Nagraha which is taken on record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 3. Petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:- " a) a writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties no.5 & 6 to take appropriate action against the opp. party no.7, in accordance with law for getting fake, frivolous and fabricated valuation report dated 09.04.2013 to harass and ruin the future career of the petitioner. b) a writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to pay compensation to the petitioner for suffering mental and physical agony to the petitioner due to illegal and malicious act of the opp. party no.7." 4. It has been submitted that earlier on the basis of a fabricated valuation report dated 9th April 2013 submitted by opposite party No.7, one Anil Mishra, inquiry proceedings were initiated against petitioner in which he was found guilty but thereafter his appeal before the chairman was allowed and petitioner was exonerated in the year 2019. 5. It is therefore submitted that since the report filed by opposite party No.7 was fabricated, an inquiry is required to be initiated against him and for directing to pay compensation for the agony suffered. 6. Learned counsel for opposite parties, on the basis of instructions, however, submits that opposite party No.7 has already superannuated from service on 30th June 2025, and there is no provision under law that any inquiry can be instituted against superannuated employee of the corporation. It is also submitted that prayer No. 2 cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction, since it pertians to tort liability. 7. Considering aforesaid submissions, as well as the aspect that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any provision under law applicable in the corporation whereby inquiry can be instituted against superannuated employee, as also the fact that no cogent explanation has been given for filing this petition after almost 12 years, this court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench