Disposed¶23

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2026WRIA/3567/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPF dues; EPS 95 pension; UPSRTC retired employee; mandamus; qualifying service from 01.01.1995; compound interest 8.25%; non-consideration; reasoned order; categorical instructions; summons to responsible officer; interim directions; matter listed fresh 20.04.2026; WRIT - A No. 3567 of 2026; Manjive Shukla, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; State of U.P. Transport Department.

What did the court decide?

No final relief decided; interim directions issued — counsel for Respondents No. 4 & 5 to take categorical instructions, with a warning that the responsible officer will be summoned if no solution is reached by the next date; matter listed fresh on 20.04.2026. ¶23

Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents are liable to pay the petitioner’s EPF dues for the period 01.03.1993 to 31.03.1997, with compound interest @ 8.25%, which remain unpaid. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Court recorded that Respondents No. 4 & 5 have not taken any decision on the payment of the petitioner’s Employees Provident Fund dues for 01.03.1993 to 31.03.1997 and have passed no reasoned order either accepting or denying the claim.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for Respondents No. 4 & 5, was directed to take categorical instructions in respect of the petitioner’s grievance.

¶21

Key takeaways

If no proper solution of the petitioner’s problem is arrived at by Respondents No. 4 & 5 by the next date, the Court will summon the responsible officer.ratio¶22
The Court observed that Respondents No. 4 and 5 are dealing with the retired employees of the U.P.S.R.T.C. in a very casual manner and their attitude towards retired employees is not appropriate.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manjive Shukla, J. — Writ petition by a retired U.P.S.R.T.C. employee seeking mandamus for (i) payment of EPF dues for 01.03.1993 to 31.03.1997 with compound interest @ 8.25% and (ii) revision of EPS 95 pension by counting qualifying service from 01.01.1995 instead of 01.04.1997. The Court found that Respondents No. 4 & 5 had taken no decision on the EPF claim and passed no reasoned order despite the petitioner’s retirement on 31.07.2018, observed that they deal with retired U.P.S.R.T.C. employees in a casual and inappropriate manner, directed their counsel to take categorical instructions, warned that the responsible officer would be summoned if no solution was arrived at by the next date, and listed the matter fresh on 20.04.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3567 of 2026

Ashok Kumar Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shyam Narayan Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Ratnesh Chandra

¶9

Court No. - 21

¶10

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Shyam Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No 1, Shri Aadi Nigam, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 and Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for Respondents No. 4 & 5.

¶12

The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia praying therein for the following reliefs:-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party no. 4 to make up to date payment of EPF dues for the period of 01.03.1993 to 31.03.1997 in a time bound manner which still has not been paid with compound interest @ 8.25% which is applicable to the all accounts of EPF organisation.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party no. 4 to revise the EPS 95 pension of the petitioner by counting the qualifying services of the petitioner since 01.01.1995 instead of 01.04.1997 and also to make the payment of arrears of revised pension in a time bound manner.

¶15

(iii) Issue Any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

WRIA No. 3567 of 2026

¶17

¶18

(iv) Allow the writ petition of the petitioner with costs."

¶19

It transpires from the record of this writ petition that Respondents No. 4 & 5 till date have not taken any decision in respect of the payment of Employees Provident Fund to the petitioner pertaining to the period from 01.03.1993 to 31.03.1997. This Court finds that the petitioner retired way back on 31.07.2018 and he is compelled to run from pillar to post and responsible authorities are not paying any heed towards his request. Till date Respondents No. 4 & 5 have not passed any reasoned order either accepting claim of the petitioner or denying the same.

¶20

It appears that Respondents No. 4 and 5 are dealing with the retired employees of the U.P.S.R.T.C. in a very casual manner and in fact, their attitude towards the retired employees is not appropriate.

¶21

Let Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for Respondents No. 4 & 5 take categorical instructions in respect of the grievance of the petitioner.

¶22

It is made clear that if by the next date, any proper solution of the petitioner's problem is not arrived at by Respondents No. 4 & 5, this Court will have no other option except to summon the responsible officer.

¶23

List/Put up this matter on 20.04.2026, as fresh.

¶24

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶25

April 10, 2026

¶26

Satish

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanand and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Hans Raj vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Its Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Jay Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Cane U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Zahidul Islam @ Salman vs State of U.P./ Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shivendra Singh and 32 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 10 Others

Sadhan Samiti Sachiv Parishad U.P. Thru. Its State President Sangharsh Samiti Shailendra Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others