Disposed¶22

Anil Kumar Katiyar v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WRIA/2849/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiral benefits; provident fund; gratuity; privilege leave encashment; admissible interest; ITI Ltd. Bangalore; retired employee; pending representation; mandamus; Writ - A No. 2849 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; petition disposed of without entering merits; fresh representation; decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move a fresh representation before respondent no. 4; respondent no. 4 to refer the matter to respondent no. 3 within thirty days; respondent no. 3 to consider and decide within a further two months in accordance with law, also considering payment of interest on the retiral dues. ¶22

Anil Kumar Katiyar vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a retired ITI Ltd. employee, is entitled to payment of retiral benefits i.e. provident fund, gratuity and privilege leave encashment with admissible interest. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

The authority seized of the matter shall also consider the payment of interest on the retiral dues.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation before respondent no. 4, who after considering the same shall refer the matter to respondent no. 3.

¶20

Key takeaways

Respondent no. 4 shall refer the matter to respondent no. 3 within a period of thirty days, and respondent no. 3 shall consider and decide it within a further period of two months, while completing all formalities in accordance with law.ratio¶20
The Court declined to adjudicate the merits (including the question of which office is liable to pay) and disposed of the petition with the aforesaid directions.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ - A No. 2849 of 2026 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; decided 17.03.2026): A retired ITI Ltd. (Bangalore plant) employee, residing at Mankapur, Gonda, sought mandamus directing payment of retiral benefits i.e. provident fund, gratuity and privilege leave encashment with admissible interest, and a decision on his pending representation. Respondents' counsel contended that since the petitioner retired from ITI Bangalore, the whole dues were payable by that head office. Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to move a fresh representation before respondent no. 4, who was to refer the matter to respondent no. 3 within thirty days, respondent no. 3 to consider and decide it within a further period of two months while completing all formalities in accordance with law; the authority was also to consider payment of interest on the retiral dues.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2849 of 2026

Anil Kumar Katiyar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Telecommunication And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vibhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Anand Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

¶10

Instant petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

¶11

"I. Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite parties specifically to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to make payment of Retiral Benefits 1.e. Provident fund, Gratuity and Privilege Leave Encashment with admissible interest to the petitioner.

¶12

II. Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite parties specifically to the opposite party no.3 to take a decision on pending representation of the petitioner.

¶13

III. Any other and further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

IV. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner against the contesting opposite parties."

¶15

The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was an employee in ITI Ltd. at Banglore and the place of working was at Bangalore plant. He submitted that the petitioner has been retired in year 2024 and thereafter, the petitioner has not been paid the retiral dues and

¶16

WRIA No. 2849 of 2026

¶17

¶18

he is running pillar to the post. He also submitted that after the retirement, the petitioner is residing at his permanent place at Mankapur, Gonda, therefore, submission is that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 may be directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted that since the petitioner has been retired from ITI Banglore, therefore, the whole dues shall be paid by the said head office.

¶20

Be that as it may, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4, who after considering the same shall refer the matter to the respondent no. 3, within period of thirty days and who shall consider and decide it within further period of two months while completing all formalities, in accordance with law.

¶21

Needless to say that the authority shall also consider the payment of interest on the retiral dues.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶24

March 17, 2026 Ram Murti

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Katiyar v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Katiyar v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra Gupta vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi U.P. and 2 Others

Chhedi Lal vs the Managing Director Urban U.P. Jal Nigam Lko. and 2 Others

Preeti Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Munnu Mykal @ Afjal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Rathaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko.

Mohd. Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Thru. S.H.O. Lko. and Another