Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9032 (ALL)

RAM BAHADUR v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/15323/2026 · 2026-09-22

Dinesh Pathak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15323 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents and perused the record on board. 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 directing the Respondents, and more particularly Respondent No.2, to compute and pay to the Petitioner, within such time as this Hon'ble Court may fix, the interest accrued on his Provident Fund for the period 2003 to 2012. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 18-07-2026 of the petitioner by a reasoned order, after affording him an opportunity of hearing within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has contended that the grievance of the present petitioner regarding non- payment of interest accrued on the provident fund as raised in the instant writ petition can be more appropriately redressed by the General Manager (respondent No. 3), and he has no objection, in case, a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be moved by the petitioner within such stipulated period as may be directed by this Court. 4. 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 petitioner to move a fresh representation before the General Manager (respondent No. 3), to ventilate his grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Pal Singh, Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ved Byas Mishra Ram Bahadur .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) attested copy of the present writ petition, and, in turn, he, either himself or through the authority competent, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of such representation. 5. 5. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of. September 23, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 15323 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad