Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 172045 (ALL)

KAUSHAL KISHORE SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/15792/2025 · 2025-10-28

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15792 of 2025 Court No. - 35 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Special Secretary Basic Education Lucknow (respondent No. 2) to decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.9.2023 and 4.4.2025 (Annexure No. 3 and 5 to writ petition) regarding for payment of balance amount of provident fund alongwith interest on delayed payment. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Secretary (Special) Basic Education Lucknow to pay balance amount of provident fund and interest on the delayed payment." 2. For the same cause of action, the petitioner has filed two writ petitions, the order of both the writ petitioners are being quoted below: "Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2170 of 2020 Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Heard counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for the State and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manju Verma, Pradeep Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kaushal Kishore Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) perused the material available on record. The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner retired on 31.03.2019, however, his dues based on retirement have not been paid till date despite request and representations. The counsel for the petitioner argues that post retiral dues should be paid with all expedition, however, the respondents are not taking any steps for payment of the retiral dues. Considering the submission made at the bar, the petitioner is permitted to approach the respondent no. 2 by filing a fresh representation within a period of three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. In the event, such a representation is filed, the respondent no.2 is directed to pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks. The respondent no.2 also decide the question of payment of interest on the delayed payment. The amount so payable and as determined by respondent no.2 shall be paid within a further period of one month to the petitioner. The petition is disposed off in terms of the above said order. Order Date :- 10.2.2020 Hasnain " " Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172198 Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8008 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Verma,Chandra Dutt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Singh Bohra Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. In compliance of this court's order dated 25.7.2023, Sri H.N. Singh and Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned counsels appearing for the Respondent No.3 on the basis of instructions received from the District Basic Education Officer, Aligarh vide his letter dated 23.8.2023, have submitted that an WRIA No. 15792 of 2025 2 amount of Rs.1,16,018/- has been credited in the savings bank account of the petitioner today itself. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the payment has already been made, therefore nothing survives in this writ petition to be decided by this court. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties, this writ petition is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Salim " 3. When the Court made query learned counsel for the petitioner as to why he had not agitated all his claims in the earlier writ petitions, he has not given any response. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that all the claims have already been executed and settled and this is the third writ petition for the same cause of action. 5. The petitioner is a retired employee, therefore, the Court is taking a lenient view rather than imposing a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, simply dismissing the petition. 6. The writ petition is dismissed without any cost. October 29, 2025 K.Tiwari WRIA No. 15792 of 2025 3 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad