Disposed

Tej Bahadur Singh v. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025WRIA/18495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired road transport employee, sought sanction and payment of arrears of ACP and directed the authority to decide his pending representation within a stipulated period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make fresh representation before Respondent No.2 within three weeks; Respondent No.2 to decide it within six weeks via reasoned order.

Tej Bahadur Singh vs Managing Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 18495 of 2025

Tej Bahadur Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tribhuwan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Tanisha Jahangir Monir ranspor orporaon n ers .....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 52

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Tribhuwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Himanshu Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir , learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

¶11

The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition for a direction upon respondents to sanctioned and pay the second ACP from 2004 and third ACP from 2014 to the petitioner as well as further prayer to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2024 within stipulated period.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Clerk in the Sonbhadra Depot, retired on 31.07.2024. He has performed his duty for more than 36 years with all sincerity and honesty, there being no complaint or adverse entry against him. The petitioner is entitled for A.C.P. but has not been provided the same, therefore, for ventilation of his grievances, the petitioner has approached the authority concerned by moving representations. However, despite representation being moved by the petitioner, no heed has yet been paid.

¶13

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.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without

¶15

WRIA No. 18495 of 2025

¶16

¶17

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; Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi 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 six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶19

December 16, 2025

¶20

Jitendra/-

¶21

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

Tej Bahadur Singh v. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Bahadur Singh v. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Rajan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Mukesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sunita Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Siddha Narayan Yadav vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and 3 Others