Disposed

Satish Chandra Shrivastava v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2024WRIA/10565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a writ petition seeking gratuity and retirement benefits. The court ordered the respondent to decide a pending representation expeditiously without adjudicating on the merits due to an existing pending request.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 07.06.2024 via a reasoned order within three months.

Satish Chandra Shrivastava vs State of Up… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135877

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10565 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Shrivastava Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶8

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent nos. 3 & 4 to grant full gratuity Rs. 13,16,502/- to the petitioner with interest following his regular more than 38 years of qualifying service.

¶9

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 7.6.2024 of the petitioner (Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition) within stipulated period in the light of observation made in order and judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 20.12.2012 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Writ-A) No. 17819 of 2007 (Mangali Prasad Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶10

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to permit the petitioner to deposit the due amount of C.P.F./G.P.F. (Managerial Contribution) with the interest for the period from February, 1981 to June 1991."

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019 as an Assistant Teacher from Swami Bagh Higher Secondary School, Dayal Bagh, Agra but till date the gratuity amount and other retiral benefits have not been extended.

¶12

Ventilating his grievance, a representation has been preferred on 07.06.2024 which is pending consideration before respondent no. 3.

¶13

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the matter is being disposed of at this stage without calling for counter affidavit, with a direction upon respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of petitioner dated 07.06.2024, strictly

¶14

in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 V.S.Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Chandra Shrivastava v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra Shrivastava v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Dr Manoj Kumar Kudesiya vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Singh vs District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh and 3 Others

Priya vs Mr. Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Secretary, Board of Basic Education

Bulendra Kumar Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others

Munna Lal Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Satish Kumar vs State of Up 4 Others