Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3341 (ALL)

RAJ KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIA/6717/2026 · 2026-05-05

Dinesh Pathak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6717 of 2026 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents and learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 6. 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 the respondents to release the Gratuity of the petitioner, as well as the arrears of the 6th pay commission, arrears of daily allowances and interest incurred on the above payments; II. Issue order or direction to decide representation dated 22-08-2025 given to the Managing Director, respondent no. 2, marked as annexture no. 10 to this writ petition, as expeditiously as possible preferably within the stipulated time" 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been paid gratuity as well as arrears of sixth pay commission to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) U.P. Jal Nigam. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made several representations before the Chief Engineer (A-2-1) U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Lucknow, however, till date, no decision has been taken thereon. 4. Learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents and learned counsel for the remaining respondents have contended that the grievance of the petitioner can be more appropriately redressed by the Chief Engineer (respondent no.4) and 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) : Neeja Srivastava, Rajan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Om, Suresh Singh Raj Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 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 before the Chief Engineer (respondent no.4) to ventilate 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 any other legal impediment. 6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of. May 6, 2026 vkg WRIA No. 6717 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad