Deena Nath vs U.P. State Bridge ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3198 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5606 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Deena Nath
 
Respondent :- U.P. State Bridge Corp.Ltd.Thru.M.D. Lko. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shishir Jain,Ram Ratan
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ram Ratan is the counsel for the opposite parties as he has filed Vakalatnama in the Registry of this Court.

In an identical matter, this Court in regard to the employees of U.P. Bridge Corporation Ltd. in Writ Petition No. 4824 (SS) of 2015 (Meera Devi vs. U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd.), on 19.08.2015, 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.

Accordingly, it is provided that the benefit of the aforesaid order dated 19.08.2015 shall be available to the petitioner of the instant writ petition and this matter shall be considered by the Managing Director on the same terms.

Subject to aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 8.3.2021

RBS/-

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]