HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10785 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated October 21, 2025 passed by respondent No.1, i.e., Government of India, through its Ministry of Labour & Employment. 3. It is to be noted that the work was carried out by the petitioner between the years 2005 and 2009. The petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No.5612 of 2025, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed the authority concerned to decide the matter. The authority had decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated October 21, 2025. The authority has categorically stated that the work was carried out between the years 2005 and 2009 and all claims were to be made by the year 2022. In the case of National Child Labour Project, District- Faizabad (herein-after referred to as the NCLP, Faizabad), whatever claims were to be made prior to March, 2022 were made by the Government of India. Further more, the NCLP, Faizabad had returned the unspent money of Rs.57,62,000/- vide DD No.107285 dated 05.05.2012 to the Government of India. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C. World Welfare Society Thru. Manager,Virendra Kumar Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) The Govt. Of India Thru. Its Ministry Of Labour And Employment New Delhi And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Upon perusal of the entire claim made out by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has come to this Court too late in the days. Even in the earlier writ petition, the only direction that was passed was that a speaking order should be passed by the authority concerned, which has been done vide order dated October 21, 2025. The order explains the manner in which the payments were made under the said scheme. It is clear from the order that the payments were made under the said scheme for the work carried out in the year 2009. 5. We are of the view that the petitioner cannot raise a claim at such a belated stage. The petitioner has been tardy in pursuing his claim and at this stage, no orders cannot be passed in the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere in the order impugned as the same is a reasoned order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 11, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 10785 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench