Petitioner challenged non-payment of salary arrears and non-decision on gratuity application. Court held the matter involved disputed facts undecidable in writ jurisdiction. Petition disposed at admission with direction to respondent to consider representation within 3 months.
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:133230
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10416 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shree Ram Srivastav Respondent :- State Of UP And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent no.2 to pay interest on delayed payment of arrears of salary from the period of 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 and 2 to pay gratuity to the petitioner in view of the judgment 30.04.2024 Civil Appeal no.5602 of 2024 (Avdhesh Singh and others Vs State of U.P and others).
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 &2 to decide the application of the petitioner for payment of gratuity to the petitioner in view of the judgment 30.04.2024 Civil Appeal no.5602 of 2024 (Avdhesh Singh and others Vs State of U.P and others)."
representation moved by petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Shekhar
Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grievance regarding unpaid arrears of salary and pending gratuity application constitutes a disputed question of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction?
Whether the respondent authority should be directed to accord consideration to the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe?
Shree Ram Srivastav
State Of UP
Director, Higher Education, U.P. Prayagraj
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
