Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11875 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12540 of 2024 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Sugar Industry And Cane Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aprajita Bansal,Anilesh Tewari,Surabhi Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijendra Singh,Jaiyesh Bhoosreddy,Sudhanshu Chauhan Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Jayesh Bhoosreddy and Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsels for the respondents no. 2 and 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. Under challenge is the order dated 09.10.2024, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for gratuity has been rejected. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ A 5863 of 2024 in re: Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. and others. The writ petition was decided vide judgement and order dated 30.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the Court was of the view that the consideration of petitioners' grievance would entail factual aspects and the petitioner was permitted to submit a representation to the respondent no. 2 which was directed to be decided within six weeks. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner in fact submitted representation in pursuance to order of this Court dated 30.07.2024 yet the respondent no. 2 has rejected the same by indicating that the petitioner has not indicated any new fact and that the earlier decision would hold good. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once this Court had directed the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner as raised in his representation as such the respondents were required to apply their mind on the grievance that had been raised by the petitioner and rejecting the representation in cursory manner as has been adopted by respondent no. 2 reflects patent non application of mind on the grievance raised by the petitioner and on the order passed by this Court dated 30.07.2024. Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsels for the respondents no. 2 and 3 does not dispute that while passing the order impugned dated 09.10.2024 no reasons have been indicated in the said order. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 09.10.2024, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, is quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner, a copy of which is annexure SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 19.12.2024 / 22.01.2025. Let a decision on the said representation be taken in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench