Allahabad High Court
Janardan Tiwari vs U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt.Of ... on 14 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36922
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3727 of 2024
Petitioner :- Janardan Tiwari
Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt.Of Telecommunications Ministry Of Communications And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadava
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dwijendra Mishra
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3.
Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to pay the quantify the number of privileged leave encashment due to Petitioner and the same may be paid along with interest for the delayed payment.
(b) Issue any suitable Writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
c) Allow the writ petition with costs."
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been retired in the year 2017, but, the privileged leave encashment has been paid to him in the year, 2022 i.e. delayed by 5 years. He next added that the petitioner has made representation dated 26-04-2024, before the authority concerned, however, the same has not been decided as yet.
In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment and Order dated 08-04-2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 7939 of 2024, Indian Telephone Industries Limited & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Shukla & Anr.
On the other hand, Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that he privileged leave encashment has already been paid to the petitioner in the year, 2022, and the petitioner has approached this court at a belated stage. He further added that in pursuant to the instructions of D.O.P.T., the corporate office has written a letter to the opposite party no. 3, for not providing any interest on the delayed payment. He also added that there is no rule so as to make payment of the interest on the delayed privileged leave encashment, however, he has no objection if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 26-04-2024.
Considering upon the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and without entering into the merits of the case, the opposite party no. 3 is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 26-04-2024, appended as Annexure No. 2 alongwith the writ petition, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.5.2024
AKS
