HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13266 of 2025 Court No. - 20 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Kushagra Kanodia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents; and Sri Avinash Chandra, Advocate, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2 & 3, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to re-compute and release full and correct amount of gratuity to the petitioner strictly in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by taking into account his entire period of continuous service commencing from the date of his initial appointment upto the date of his superannuation. It is also prayed that the respondent No. 2 be directed to pay to the petitioner the statutory interest on the wrongfully withheld / delayed gratuity, strictly in accordance with Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, from the date on which the gratuity became due and payable, until the date of its actual realization. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner rendered a long and continuous service w.e.f 21.10.1986 to 30.06.2022 including the work charge services from 21.10.1986 onwards. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are applicable in the case of the petitioner by virtue of Regulation 47(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Service Regulations, 1984. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Others Versus State of U. P. And Others) having WRIT- C No. 24841 of 2016 wherein it has been held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies in full to the employees of the Mandi Parishad and gratuity cannot be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Kushagra Kanodia Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh Vidyasagar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran And Videsh Vyapar Anubhag-1, Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) curtailed on the basis of State Rules or Board Circulars. 4. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner preferred several representations to the concerned authorities requesting therein for re-calculation of the gratuity for the period of service and payment of statutory interest but the said representations have not yet been decided nor any payment as claimed by the petitioner has been made. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that at this stage, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending. 6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh having its office at Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (respondent No. 2) to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move a fresh representation narrating therein the complete facts, taking all pleas and grounds available to him under the law, within a period of two weeks from today before the respondent No. 2 and in case if such representation is received by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 2) within the period as specified here-in-above, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and shall be disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order; within a period of eight weeks from today, from the date of the receipt of the aforesaid representation along with the certified copy of this order. 8. It is further directed that the decision/ order passed by the respondent No. 2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such order. 9. Needless to say that in case is the claim of the petitioner finds favour and unless there is any legal impediment in the payment of the same, the payment of gratuity etc. shall be paid to the petitioner at the earliest, without any unnecessary delay. However, if there is any delay in making the payment of gratuity, the claim of the petitioner for interest may also be considered in the light of the statutory provisions. November 18, 2025 (Manoj K.) WRIA No. 13266 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench