Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 177477 (ALL)

RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. PANCHAYATI RAJ LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/13021/2025 · 2025-11-15

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13021 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 4. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was employed in the Auto Tractor Limited, Pratapgarh, from where his services were retrenched on 22.08.1996 and his services were subsequently absorbed on the post of on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The petitioner continued to work on the said post till the date of his superannuation on 31.10.2015. 2. He has further submitted that during his service on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, he received all tghe service benefit including the first A.C.P. grade pay, second A.C.P. etc. 3. He has further submitted that on his superannuation on 31.10.2015 a 'No Dues Certificate' was issued and even pension, gratuity and commutation were duly sanctioned by means of order dated 23.5.2016. Subsequent to the sanction of his post retiral dues, he is receiving the pension and commutation of pension but the amount of gratuity was not paid and an order was issued on 20.6.2016 withholding his gratuity on account of some litigation, which is pending in the High Court, awaiting the final order in the said case and in the aforesaid circumstances amount of Rs. 3,23,314/- was with held. When the present writ petition was filed, learned Standing Counsel was directed to find out about the pending writ Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) petition in the High Court, the reference was given on 20.6.2016 passed by the Deputy Director (Panchayat) Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad Drawing and Disbursing Authority, District Pratapgarh. Accordingly written instructions have been received from District Panchayati Raj Officer, Pratapgarh dated 12.11.2025, wherein it has been stated that gratuity has not been paid tot he petitioner and no details of the pending writ proceeding before the High Court have been indicated. 4. I find that the order dated 20.6.2016 is vague order, where no description of the writ petition which was pending has been stated and even after 9 years the relaxation could not indicate the particular number of the case, which is pending in this Court. The judgement of which was awaited before the disbursement of the amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand I find that in paragraph 12 of the writ petition the petitioner has categorically stated that he has not filed any writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad or at Lucknow and does not have any knowledge of any petition being filed by the opposite parties with regard to the claim of the petitioner. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, I find that there is a legal and valid order existing on record dated 23.5.2016 sanctioned amount of gratuity to the petitioner which has been arbitrary withheld by means of the impugned order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Deputy Director (Panchayat) 9 years is extremely long length of time and I do not find any ground for further withholding the amount of gratuity in absence of specific averment indicating that the the amount of gratuity has been with held on the directions of this Court or that amount of gratuity is directly issued in any proceeding pending before this Court. 6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.6.2016 is set aside. The opposite parties are directed to forthwith release the amount of gratuity as sanctioned by means of the order dated 23.5.2016. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for 10% interest from the date of sanctioned of gratuity till the date of payment. 8. Let the aforesaid exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within a WRIA No. 13021 of 2025 2 period of six weeks, form the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Competent Authority. November 15, 2025 Muk WRIA No. 13021 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench