Petitioner sought writ relief regarding post-retirement benefits. The court observed that the petitioner had already received all benefits, rendering the cause of action gone, and dismissed the petition as infructuous without detailed reasoning.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6671
Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9191 of 2023
Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Allahabad U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Krishna Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has received all his post retiral benefits and no cause of action survives.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 23.1.2024 Prashant D.
Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Brijesh Kumar Srivastava
Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organisation Allahabad
3 Others
Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
