HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12152 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by V. K. Singh, Advocate for respondent/ opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent/ opposite party no. 1 and Shri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent/ opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following main reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2, to forthwith re-compute and release to the Petitioner the full and correct amount of gratuity, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ No. 24841 of 2016 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Others v. State of U.P. & Others), by duly reckoning the Petitioner's entire period of continuous service from the date of his initial appointment until 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." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Kushagra Kanodia Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh Vanshraj Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran And Videsh Vyapar, Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) ready to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority, therefore, he may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2, i.e., Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Prishad, U.P. at Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and a direction may be issued to him to consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner with expedition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection if direction for disposal of the said representation is issued. 6. Therefore, in view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2, i.e., Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Prishad, U.P. at Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ventilating his grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copy of his earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of fifteen days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if it is so required, with expedition preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith. 7. It is need less to say that if there is no legal impediment, the payment of gratuity would be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment. However, if there is delay in making payment of gratuity, the claim of the petitioner fore interest may also be considered in the light of statutory prescriptions. October 15, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 12152 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench