Disposed¶10

Sukai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others

Service law – Retiral dues

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2025WRIA/1976/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiral dues; Safai Nayak; retirement 31.05.2024; representation to competent authority; reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; payment of admissible dues within four weeks; writ petition disposed of without going into merits; State of U.P., Deptt. of Urban Development; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; WRIT - A No. 1976 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:42126; Order Date 23.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with consent of parties: petitioner permitted to submit a representation before the competent authority within ten days; authority to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; any admissible dues to be paid within four weeks of the representation being decided. ¶10

Sukai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42126

¶2

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1976 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sukai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 3 Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjari Singh,Dheerendra Singh,Km. Deepa,Vikrant Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Tripathi,Naveen Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Ajitnshu Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and 4.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having retired on 31.05.2024 while working as Safai Nayak under the respondent no. 3, his retiral dues have still not been paid.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the competent authority which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Ajitnshu Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and 4 have no objection.

¶9

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within ten days from today before the competent authority then the competent authority shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

¶10

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

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

¶12

It is also provided that in case any dues are found to be admissible to the petitioner the same shall be paid to him within next four weeks from the date of said representation being decided.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Pachhere/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sukai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Murari Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 14 Others

Sharda Prasad Srivastava Vs Director Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Lko. and 3 Others

Praveen Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Secondary Education and Ors.

Dhiraj Narayan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondray Education Lko. and 4 Others

Shankar Lal Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Cooperative ) Up Civil Secrtt. Lko. and 2 Others