Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13210 (ALL)

SHYAM v. STATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/16438/2026 · 2026-10-06

Dinesh Pathak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 16438 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondent no.1; Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, and Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: "(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to release the retiral dues of the petitioner like G.P.F., Gratuity, Leave encashment & Group Insurance etc. along with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner; (II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to decide and pass order on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.08.2026 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) within stipulated period at an early date as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (III). issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;" 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that the grievance of the present petitioner, as raised in the instant writ petition, can be more appropriately redressed by the Executive Engineer (respondent no.3) and that they have no objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the fresh representation, to be moved by the present petitioner, within such stipulated period, as may be directed by this Court. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinav Shukla, B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Om Shyam .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Executive Engineer (respondent no.3) ventilating his grievances, as raised in this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ petition, who, in turn, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of the same, if there is no other legal impediment. 5. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. October 7, 2026 vkg WRIA No. 16438 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad