HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12854 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Sri Anagh Shukla, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anagh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, in particular Respondent No. 2, to forthwith re-compute and release to the Petitioner the full and correct amount of gratuity strictly in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by duly taking into account his entire period of continuous service commencing from the date of his initial appointment up to the date of superannuation; ii. Issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner statutory interest on the wrongfully withheld/delayed gratuity strictly in accordance with Section 7(3A) of the Act, i.e., from the date on which the gratuity became due and payable until the date of its actual realization. iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioner, and iv. Award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner." Learned counsel for the respondent Mandi Parishad submits that payment of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kushagra Kanodia, Akhilesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh Santosh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran And Videsh Vyapar Anubhag-1 Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) gratuity Act, 1972 is not applicable to the services of the petitioner and rather the Government Order dated 22.6.1987 would attract regarding payment of gratuity. He submits that the petitioner has prayed for payment of gratuity as per the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any change in the provisions at the level of Mandi Parishad would be subject to Section 5 of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and, therefore, in this view of the matter, the Government Order dated 22.6.1987 is redundant. After the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest of justice would be subserved, if this Hon'ble Court may be given liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the respondent no.3/ Deputy Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parisahd, while claiming payment of gratuity under the applicable laws and the respondent no.3 is directed to consider and decide the same within time fixed. Learned counsel for the respondent Mandi Parishad has no objection to the submission aforesaid. Be that as it may, without entering into merits of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation while claiming of payment of gratuity under the relevant laws, within 15 days and in case such representation is made, the respondent no.3, Deputy Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parisahad, Mirzapur Mandal, U.P. is directed to consider and decide the same, within a period of two month, from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. November 4, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 12854 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench