MAHESH PRASAD GUPTA v. THE STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIA/8593/2023 · 2025-04-28
Ajay Bhanot
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28492 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28492 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66674 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8593 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mahesh Prasad Gupta Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Choudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Om,Suresh Singh Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents discloses that all the retiral and terminal benefits of the petitioner admissible to him under different heads have been duly computed and released to him. According to Shri Sunil Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, the pensionary dues from 01.08.2009 to 01.03.2013 have not been disbursed and the other dues have to be recomputed. He has made a representation before the competent authority but to no avail. The only prayer made by Shri Sunil Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time. Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondent-Jal Nigam submits that the matter requires determination of facts by the competent authority in light of the applicable provisions of law in the first instance. However, he fairly contends that his service benefit is liable to be decided by the competent authority in a
reasonable time frame. In wake of the submissions made at the Bar and without going into the merits of the case, the respondent No.2- Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), 6 Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow/competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding his pensionary dues from 01.08.2009 to 01.03.2013 and other dues, as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation. However, in view of the delay on part of the petitioner for which no satisfactory explanation is offered, the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on the amount. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Ashish Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad