Allahabad High Court
RAMA SHANKARversusU.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The court directed the petitioner to file fresh representation within a month and the corporation to decide the matter within two months after hearing, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
Rama Shankar, a former Class IV employee of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd who retired on 31 July 2010, challenged a letter dated 15 January 2025 that reduced his post‑retirement payments and denied certain heads of dues. He claimed that the corporation calculated his gratuity, EPF, salary arrears, leave encashment, pension arrears, group insurance and allowances without considering his objection and without affording a hearing, thereby violating the law. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the letter and mandamus directing the corporation to recompute and pay the full dues, to provide salary structure details, and to grant interest. The respondents contended that the objection would be considered in due time. The court held that the petitioner must 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. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the corporation’s calculation and release of post‑retirement dues without hearing the petitioner’s objection violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 15‑01‑2025.
- Whether the court can direct the corporation to recompute and pay the full retiral dues and provide salary structure details.
Subjects
- retirement dues
- gratuity
- EPF
- leave encashment
- pension
- mandamus
- certiorari
- natural justice
- representation
- hearing
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 3721 of 2026
Rama Shankar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd 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 15.01.2025 (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. 3721 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 31.07.2010 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 50 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.
March 19, 2026
D. Tamang
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…