Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1664 (ALL)

RAMAADHAR YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/7456/2026 · 2026-05-17

Dinesh Pathak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 7456 of 2026 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents no.1 to 3; Shri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5, and perused the record on Board. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Authorities to make payment of the entire amount of Gratuity Rs. 10,96,436/-, pension for three months i.e. February 2025 to April 2025, Leave Encashment, Bonus for two years, Dearness Allowance and other admissible benefits accrued to the petitioner. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Authorities to pay interest upon the entire amount of Gratuity Rs. 10,96,436/-, pension for three months i.e. February 2025 to April 2025, Leave Encashment, Bonus for two years, Dearness Allowance and other admissible benefits." 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been paid gratuity, leave encashment etc., despite repeated request made on his behalf. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents no.4 and 5 has contended that the grievance of the petitioner can be more appropriately redressed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar (respondent no.4) and he has no objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a 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) : Anupam Kumar Shukla, Himanshu Kumar, Sushmita Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Satyendra Nath Tiwari Ramaadhar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioner to move a fresh representation with respect to 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 before the respondent no.4, 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. 6. With the aforesaid direction, instant writ petition is finally disposed of. May 18, 2026 VR WRIA No. 7456 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIBHA RATAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad