Disposed¶11

Raghuraj Singh and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025WRIA/21012/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. writ petition (WRIT-A 21012/2024, Allahabad HC, Ajay Bhanot J., decided 06-01-2025) on undisbursed retiral dues including gratuity and interest; unanswered representation; court, without merits, ordered competent authority to decide representation as per law within three months of certified copy of order with fresh representation; writ petition finally disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the authority concerned to decide the petitioners' representation regarding their claims for retiral dues as per law within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this order together with a fresh copy of the representation; writ petition finally disposed of on that basis. ¶11

Raghuraj Singh and 21 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' representation concerning their undisbursed retiral dues, including gratuity and interest, is to be decided by the competent authority as per law, and within what time frame.

¶7

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the authority concerned was directed to decide the representation of the petitioners.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The representation regarding the petitioners' claims for retiral dues was to be decided as per law within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, accompanied by a fresh copy of the representation.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 5; judge: Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.) disposed of WRIT - A No. 21012 of 2024 on 6.1.2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC:1967). Petitioners led by Raghuraj Singh (with 21 others, 22 in all) complained that their retiral dues, including gratuity and interest, had not been disbursed as per their entitlement, and that a representation to this effect had gone unanswered. Counsel for respondents (nos. 2 and 5) contended that the matter required factual determination by the competent authority under applicable law in the first instance and fairly conceded that the claims were liable to be decided within a reasonable time frame. Without entering the merits, the court directed the authority concerned to decide the petitioners' representation regarding their claims for retiral dues as per law within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order together with a fresh copy of the representation, and finally disposed of the writ petition. No statute or precedent is engaged in the judgment text.

Raghuraj Singh and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuraj Singh and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Naresh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amarnath Saini and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Subodh Rana and 2 Others vs Shri Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lko. and 4 Others

Sandeep Chauhan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sushil Raikwar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shakuntala Devi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others