HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 3733 of 2026 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Nagesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "1. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned letter dated 28.08.2024 (up to the extent of making "lesser payments" and "denial of payment under some heads") issued by the respondent no. 1. 2. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent No. 1, to re-consider the petitioner's claim and to pay the arrears/differences of the post retiral dues (as detailed in Paragraph no. 37), viz. Gratuity, E.P.F. and arrears of salary, as well as to pay the withheld dues viz. Leave encashment, arrears of pension, Group insurance (GIS), and arrears of allowances, all on the basis of actual "revised last drawn salary", similar to and payable to the other regular retired employees of the corporation, along with Interest @18% PA and penal interest for delayed payment of gratuity, from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment, as well as to pay/release the 'pension' regularly month to month, deciding representation/objection dated 23.04.2025, as revised and paid, in the case of Pyare Lal, within the stipulated period to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 3. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent No. 1, to provide a six-monthly List showing revised salary structures (basic-pay, grade pay, DA% and annual increments) from January, 2010 till date of retirement as well as the "revised last pay certificate" of the petitioner." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was working as Class IV employee under the respondent-U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has retired on 31.05.2014 and some of the retiral dues have been released, however, quantum of the release of retiral dues is not in accordance law. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that lessor amount has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod K. Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Nagesh Kumar Kallu .....Petitioner(s) U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) been released. In respect of which, petitioner has already filed an objection, which is at page 51 of the paper book. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without considering the objection of the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing, retiral dues have been calculated and as such, objections raised by the petitioner are required to be considered in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that objection of petitioner in respect of retiral dues would be considered by respondent no.1 in accordance with law in a time bound manner. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided that petitioner shall file fresh representation giving detail reasons to the release of the lessor retiral dues within a period of one month from today along with a certified copy of this order. In the event any such representation is filed, respondent no.1 shall decide the same within a period of two months thereafter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. March 19, 2026 D. Tamang WRIA No. 3733 of 2026 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad