Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Mr. Munna Pandey, advocate holding brief of Mr. Harshit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

¶12

"i. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding directing the Respondent no. 2 to release the amount of A.C.P. and other consequential benefits such as revised pension & arrears of differences of gratuity as well as group insurance of the petitioner alongwith its admissible interest i.e. @ 12% per annum, till the actual payment is made.

¶13

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the claim of petitioner contained in representation dated 06.05.2025 and reminder dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition) for being released the amount of A.C.P. and other consequential benefits such as revised pension and arrears of difference of gratuity as well as group insurance of the Petitioner/Retired Safai Karmachari in favour of petitioner alongwith its admissible interest ie. @ 12% per annum, till the actual payment is made.

¶14

iii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in

¶15

the circumstances of the case.

¶16

iv. To Award the cost of the petition in favor of the Petitioner."

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for ventilation of his

¶18

WRIA No. 17282 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

grievances regarding payment of ACP and other consequential benefits such as revised pension & arrears of differences of gratuity as well as GIS alongwith admissible interest, the petitioner has approached the authority concerned by moving representation. However, despite representation moved by the petitioner, no heed has yet been paid. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the authority concerned to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case petitioner moves a fresh application/representation before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner may make fresh application/representation, ventilating all his grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.2; The Municipal Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar Nigam, District-Kanpur Nagar within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.2 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶23

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶24

November 25, 2025

¶25

Jitendra/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Km. Dimple Singh and 12 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Shishpal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Kalpana Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Basnat Prasad and 25 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Narayan Urf Mutur vs State of U.P. and Another