Disposed¶12

Sudhir Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and Another

Service Law – Leave Encashment

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2025WRIA/7160/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave encashment; retirement/superannuation 2021; U.P. Public Works Department employee; office order dated 18.10.2014 withdrawn; withholding of dues due to pendency of criminal case; direction to decide representation by reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; writ petition disposed of without deciding merits; no mandamus for payment granted; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; WRIT - A No. 7160 of 2025; decided 7.7.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:38120.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner submits a representation within ten days before respondent no. 2, it shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; no monetary relief awarded. ¶12

Sudhir Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38120

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7160 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivanshu Goswami,Arpit Verma,Bhakti Mohan Avasthy,Prerna Jalan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶6

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

¶7

Under challenge is the office order dated 18.10.2014, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately disburse leave encashment admissible and payable to the petitioner along with the interest.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2021. However, leave encashment of the petitioner has not been paid to him on the basis of office order dated 18.10.2014 and hence the petition.

¶9

On the other hand, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 states that office order dated 18.10.2014 has already been withdrawn. He further states that on account of pendency of the criminal case, the leave encashment has not been paid.

¶10

At this stage, 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 respondent No.2 which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have no objection.

¶11

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within ten days from today before the respondent No.2 then the respondent No.2 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.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Pachhere/-

¶15

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

Sudhir Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Pratap Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Besic Eduaction and Ors.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhawna Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Appar Mukhya Sachiv Basic Education andORS

Lallu Ram Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Khelawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhir Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and Another