Allahabad High Court
SWAMI DEENversusUP STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The court declined to grant the writs and instead ordered the petitioner to file fresh representation and the corporation to decide the matter after a hearing, thereby disposing the petition.
Summary
Swami Deen, a former Class IV employee of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., retired on 31 October 2010 and alleges that the corporation released his retiral dues in a lesser amount without considering his objection or providing a hearing. He filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash the corporation’s letter dated 03‑02‑2025, mandamus directing reconsideration and payment of arrears of gratuity, EPF, salary, leave encashment, pension, GIS and allowances with interest, and a six‑monthly salary structure list. The corporation contended that the objection would be considered in accordance with law. The High Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within one month, after which the corporation must decide the matter within two months, giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court disposed of the writ petition without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the corporation’s calculation and release of retiral dues without hearing the petitioner violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the corporation’s letter dated 03‑02‑2025.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the corporation to reconsider the claim and pay the arrears of various post‑retirement benefits.
- Whether the court can compel the corporation to provide a six‑monthly salary structure list and revised last pay certificate.
Subjects
- retirement dues
- gratuity
- EPF
- leave encashment
- pension
- mandamus
- certiorari
- natural justice
- representation
- hearing
- U.P. State Bridge Corporation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 3720 of 2026
Swami Deen
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Up State Bridge Corporation Ltd., Through Its
Managing Director And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod K. Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Nagesh Kumar
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Nagesh Kumar, learned
counsel for respondents.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"1. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the
impugned letter dated 03.02.2025 (up to the extent of making "lesser payments" and
"denial of payment under some heads") issued by the respondent no. 1.
2. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the
respondent No. 1, to re-consider the petitioner's claim and to pay the
arrears/differences of the post retiral dues (as detailed in Paragraph no. 37) viz.
Gratuity, E.P.F. and arrears of salary, as well as to pay the withheld dues viz. Leave
encashment, arrears of pension, Group insurance (GIS), and arrears of allowances,
all on the basis of actual "revised last drawn salary", similar to and payable to the
other regular retired employees of the corporation, along with Interest @18% PA and
penal interest for delayed payment of gratuity, from the date of retirement till the date
of actual payment, as well as to pay/release the 'pension' regularly month to month,
deciding representation/objection dated 23.04.2025, as revised and paid, in the case
of Pyare Lal, within the stipulated period to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
3. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the
respondent No. 1, to provide a six-monthly List showing revised salary structures
(basic-pay, grade pay, DA% and annual increments) from January, 1999 till date of
retirement as well as the "revised last pay certificate" of the petitioner."
WRIA No. 3720 of 2026
2
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was
working as Class IV employee under the respondent-U.P. State Bridge
Corporation Limited. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner
has retired on 31.10.2010 and some of the retiral dues have been released,
however, quantum of the release of retiral dues is not in accordance law.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that lessor amount has been released.
In respect of which, petitioner has already filed an objection, which is at
page 51 of the paper book. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
without considering the objection of the petitioner and without giving
opportunity of hearing, retiral dues have been calculated and as such,
objections raised by the petitioner are required to be considered in
accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that objection of petitioner in
respect of retiral dues would be considered by respondent no.1 in accordance
with law in a time bound manner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided
that petitioner shall file fresh representation giving detail reasons to the
release of the lessor retiral dues within a period of one month from today
along with a certified copy of this order. In the event any such representation
is filed, respondent no.1 shall decide the same within a period of two months
thereafter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
March 19, 2026
D. Tamang
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…