Ramendra Nath Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran , Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1 and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025WRIA/13294/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for gratuity and interest under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 disposed of at admission stage with liberty to file fresh representation before Mandi Parishad Director; directions for time-bound decision and communication.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit fresh representation; direction to respondent No. 2 to decide representation within two months and communicate decision within one week; payment of gratuity and interest to be considered if claim is accepted. ¶¶27

Ramendra Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran , Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1 and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13294 of 2025

Ramendra Nath Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran , Videsh Vyapar Anubhag-1 And 2 Others

¶7

Videsh Vyapar Anubhag-1 And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Kushagra Kanodia Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surendra Kumar Singh

¶8

Court No. - 20

¶9

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Kushagra Kanodia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Parmanand Asthana, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents; and Sri Syed Shabab Haider Zaidi, Advocate, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2 & 3, which is taken on record.

¶11

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶12

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, in particular Respondent No. 2, to forthwith re-compute and release to the Petitioner the full and correct amount of gratuity strictly in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by duly taking into account his entire period of continuous service commencing from the date of his initial appointment up to the date of superannuation;

¶13

ii. Issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner statutory interest on the wrongfully withheld/ delayed gratuity strictly in accordance with Section 7(3A) of the Act, i.e., from the date on which the gratuity became due and payable until the date of its actual realization."

¶14

Precisely, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court vide order dated 19.07.2016 passed in Writ-C No. 24841

¶15

WRIA No. 13294 of 2025

¶16

¶17

of 2016 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Versus Appellate Authority And Others) has settled the position that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is also applicable in respect of the employees of the Mandi Parishad. However, despite such settled legal position, the petitioner’s gratuity has been curtailed. It is emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the curtailed gratuity was released after inordinate delay, without payment of statutory interest mandated under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as per which the employee is entitled for the simple interest from the date when the gratuity became payable till the date it is actually paid.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.01.1987 on work-charge basis at Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi (Construction Wing) where he discharged his duties. It is submitted that upon rendering long and uninterrupted service, the petitioner was regularised on 28.06.1996 on the post of Mandi Abhirakshak in the pay-scale of 750-940. The petitioner served the respondent-department for about 36 years including the work-charge service from 01.01.1987 onwards and retired on 31.12.2016 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Upon retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned and paid gratuity belatedly on 02.07.2021, after an inordinate delay of about four months from the date of superannuation. The computation of gratuity was restricted only to the period of regular service from 28.06.1996 to 31.12.2016 thereby excluding the long span of nearly 9 years of continuous work-charge service rendered from 01.01.1987 to 28.06.1996, causing substantial financial loss and depriving the petitioner of his rightful terminal benefits. Moreover, in terms of Section 7(3) and Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, gratuity is mandatorily payable within 30 days of retirement and in case of delay, the employer is bound to pay simple interest till the date of actual payment.

¶19

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 28.08.2025 before the Director, U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow but till date, the same has not drawn attention of the concerned authority while the similarly situated employees of respondent department have already been extended the

¶20

WRIA No. 13294 of 2025

¶21

¶22

benefit of gratuity, strictly under the Provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶23

Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that at this stage, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending.

¶24

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation inter alia raising all pleas and grounds available to him under the law, along with the copy of the earlier representation dated 28.08.2025, within a period of two weeks from today before the respondent No. 2 and in case if such representation is received by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 2) within the period as specified here-in-above, the same shall be considered and decided by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the aforesaid representation along with the certified copy of this order.

¶25

It is further directed that the decision/ order passed by the respondent No. 2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such order.

¶26

Needless to say that in case if the claim of the petitioner finds favour and there is no legal impediment in the payment of the same, the payment of gratuity etc. shall be paid to the petitioner at the earliest, without any unnecessary delay. However, if there is any delay in making the payment of gratuity, the claim of the petitioner for interest may also be considered in the light of the statutory provisions.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶29

November 18, 2025 (Manoj K.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramendra Nath Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran , Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1 and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramendra Nath Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran , Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1 and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar Anubhag- I Lko. and 2 Others

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Lko. Thru. Chairman and Another vs M/S Urbanac Developers and Company, Lko. Thru. Mr. Ravi Bansal, Partner and Authorized Signatory

Kausari Fatma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Madan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Sajanlal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others