Banshi Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran/Videsh Vyapar Anubhag 1 Lko. and 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent/ opposite party no. 1 and Shri Anubhav Shukla, learned counsel for respondent/ opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief :-

¶12

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, in particular Respondent No. 2, to forthwith re-compute and release to the Petitioner the full and correct amount of gratuity strictly in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by duly taking into account his entire period of continuous service commencing from the date of his initial appointment up to the date of superannuation; in the light of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs State of U.P. and Others, Writ Petition No. 24841 (SS) of 2016, decided on 19.07.2016, wherein it has been categorically held that the employees of the Mandi Samiti are entitled to gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act,1972.

¶13

ii. Issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus,

¶14

WRIA No. 3073 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

commanding the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner statutory interest on the wrongfully withheld/delayed gratuity strictly in accordance with Section 7(3A) of the Act, i.e., from the date on which the gratuity became due and payable until the date of its actual realization."

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority, therefore, he may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2, i.e., Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Prishad, U.P. at Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and a direction may be issued to him to consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner with expeditiously at earliest.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection if direction for disposal of the said representation is issued.

¶19

Therefore, in view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2, i.e., Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Prishad, U.P. at Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ventilating his grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copy of his earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of fifteen days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if it is so required, with expedition preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶20

It is need less to say that if there is no legal impediment, the payment of gratuity would be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment. However, if there is delay in making payment of gratuity, the claim of the petitioner fore interest

¶21

WRIA No. 3073 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

may also be considered in the light of statutory prescriptions.

¶24

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶25

March 23, 2026

¶26

GauraV/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Banshi Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran/Videsh Vyapar Anubhag 1 Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banshi Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran/Videsh Vyapar Anubhag 1 Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indra Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Praveen Kumar Srivastav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Diwakar Joshi and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Chandra Chauhan (R.C.Chauhan ) vs U.P. Jal Nigam Lko. Thru. M.D. and Another

Pankaj @ Gugge vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. / Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Trinetra Prasad Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Industries Lko. and 2 Others