Allahabad High Court
Harishchandra vs U.P.State Bridge Corp.Ltd.Thru. ... on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1305 of 2021
Petitioner :- Harishchandra
Respondent :- U.P.State Bridge Corp.Ltd.Thru. M.D.Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Shishir Jain
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notices on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by Sri Shishir Jain, Advocate.
Heard Ms. Ashmita Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shishir Jain, Advocate for the opposite parties.
In an earlier Writ Petition No. 4824 (SS) of 2015 (Meera Devi vs. U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd.), on 19.08.2015 this Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shishir Jain learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following main relief :-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.1,05,250/- to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 with interest including all admissible allowances with interest as well as in accordance with the judgment in Writ Petition No. 5917(SS) of 2012 Darsu Ram Vs. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and another.
In view of the above said facts, the interest of justice will sub-serve in the present case, if the opposite party no.1 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner which she has raised in the present petition.
Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to opposite party no.1/Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited, Lucknow within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order annexing all the relevant documents and materials in support of her case and after receiving the same opposite party no.1 shall consider and dispose of by way of speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of eight weeks thereafter, if possible.
It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.
With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of."
Learned counsel for opposite parties has no objection if the benefit of the aforesaid order is provided to the petitioner.
In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order, enclosing all relevant documents and material in support of the case. In case such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.1 shall consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021
Gautam
