Anil Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2025WRIA/13582/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-payment of gratuity; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; retirement on superannuation 30.09.2023 and 31.12.2022; mandi parishad employees; representation to Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P.; decision within six weeks considering Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Writ-C No. 24841 of 2016 (19.07.2016); merits not examined; writ petition disposed of; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; single judge Shree Prakash Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to respondent no. 1 within two weeks; respondent no. 1 to consider and decide it in accordance with law within six weeks, considering the judgment in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Writ-C No. 24841 of 2016); no substantive relief granted on merits. ¶¶15

Anil Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, due to the petitioners who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2023 and 31.12.2022, remains unpaid and how it is to be secured.

¶¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty left open to the petitioners to submit a representation to respondent no. 1 within two weeks from the date of the order.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

On receipt of such representation, respondent no. 1 shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within six weeks, considering this Court's judgment in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Writ-C No. 24841 of 2016).

¶¶18

Key takeaways

The Court expressly recorded that it has not gone into the merits of the case; no view was taken on entitlement to gratuity.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Shree Prakash Singh, J. — WRIT-A No. 13582 of 2025, disposed of on November 24, 2025. Petitioners (Anil Kumar Srivastava and 2 others), who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2023 and 31.12.2022, contended that gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 had not been paid by Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. and others, relying on this Court's earlier decision in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Appellate Authority and Ors, Writ-C No. 24841 of 2016, decided 19.07.2016 (annexure 15 to the writ petition). With the consent of counsel the petition was finally decided and disposed of, leaving the petitioners free to submit a representation to respondent no. 1 within two weeks; respondent no. 1 was directed to consider and decide it in accordance with law within six weeks, taking into account the judgment in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra). The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13582 of 2025

¶3

Anil Kumar Srivastava And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.. o. n ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rajiv Srivastava, Avadhesh Kumar Singh : Surendra Kumar Singh

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and the same is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite the petitioners having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2023 and 31.12.2022, the gratuity as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has not been paid to the petitioners.

¶14

It is contended that this aspect of the matter has already been considered by this Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Appellate Authority and Ors passed in Writ-C No. 24841 of 2016 decided on 19.07.2016, a copy of which is annexure 15 to the writ petition.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondent no. 1 within two weeks from today. In case, such a representation is

¶16

WRIA No. 13582 of 2025

¶17

¶18

made then the respondent no. 1 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of next six weeks considering the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra).

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case .

¶20

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶21

November 24, 2025 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lko. and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Food and Civil Supply Deptt.Lko.and Ors.

Krishna Kumar and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Deptt.Civil Sectt.andORS

Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Edu.Deptt.Lko.and Ors.

Arya Kumar and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Sohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Education (Basic) and 4 Others

Pramod Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 Others