Allahabad High Court
KAMLESH CHANDRA SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, directing the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Managing Director.
Summary
Petitioner Kamlesh Chandra Singh filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Union of India and other respondents to pay his pending gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, LLTC encashment, medical reimbursement, salary arrears and canteen subsidy, and to decide a representation dated 27.06.2026. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Managing Director, who is the appropriate authority, and offered no objection to a direction for a fresh representation. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held that the petition could be more appropriately redressed before the Managing Director and therefore disposed of the writ petition without reaching the merits. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks and for the Managing Director to decide it within three months. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition for payment of gratuity and other dues or direct the petitioner to approach the appropriate administrative authority.
- Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 27.06.2026.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- gratuity
- leave encashment
- provident fund
- administrative law
- representation
- High Court of Allahabad
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15346 of 2026
Kamlesh Chandra Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganesh Shankar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Sudarshan Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on
behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 5 before the Court today, which is taken
on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly and print his name as
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned
counsel for the Union of India, respondent No. 1; Sri Pranjal Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 and perused the record on
board.
3. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus the
commanding/directing respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to pay the gratuity
amount of Rs.15,96,133.67/-, Privilege Leave Encashment of
Rs.11,19,693.00, Provident Fund of Rs.23,02,709.35/-, LLTC Encashment
of Rs.10,578/-, Medical Reimbursement of Rs.2216.60/-and arrears of
salary for the month of January , 2025 of Rs.15,190/-, and for the month
of February of Rs.16,480.00/-, and for the month of June, 2025 of
Rs.48,530/- total arrears of Salary is Rs. 80,200.00/- and Canteen
Subsidy of last month January, 2026,,.along with interest to petitioner.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding/directing respondent authorities to the decide the
representation of the Petitioner dated 27.06.2026 (Annexure No.6 to this
writ petition)."
4. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the contesting-respondents No. 2
to 5 contends that the grievance of the present petitioner raised in the instant
writ petition regarding non-payment of gratuity, privileged leave encashment
WRIA No. 15346 of 2026
2
etc. can be more appropriately redressed by the Managing Director
(respondent No. 4), and he has no objection, in case, a direction is issued for
expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be moved by the petitioner
within such stipulated period as may be directed by this Court.
5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh
representation before the Managing Director (respondent No. 4), to ventilate
his grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a period of three
weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self
attested copy of the present writ petition, and, in turn, he shall consider and
decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a
period of three months from the date of production of such representation.
6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
September 23, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…