Allahabad High Court
KHYALI SINGHversusU.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the corporation to decide the matter after hearing, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
Khyali Singh, a former Class IV employee of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd, retired on 30 June 2011 and contended that the corporation released his retiral dues in a lesser amount than mandated by law, citing a letter dated 20 September 2024 that reduced payments and denied certain heads. He filed an objection to the calculation but alleged that no hearing was afforded and the objection was ignored. The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the letter and mandamus directing the corporation to recompute and pay the full gratuity, EPF, salary arrears, leave encashment, pension arrears, group insurance and allowances with interest, as well as to provide a six‑monthly salary structure list. The respondents argued that the objection would be considered in accordance with law. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within one month, attaching reasons for the reduced dues, and ordered the corporation to decide the representation within two months after granting a hearing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the corporation’s calculation and release of the petitioner’s retiral dues without a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the court can quash the corporation’s letter and compel a recomputation and payment of the full retiral dues with interest.
- Whether the petitioner must be given an opportunity to file a fresh representation before the corporation decides on the dues.
Subjects
- retiral dues
- gratuity
- EPF
- leave encashment
- pension
- mandamus
- certiorari
- natural justice
- hearing
- U.P. State Bridge Corporation
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 3737 of 2026
Khyali Singh
.....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 20.09.2024 (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."
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
WRIA No. 3737 of 2026
2
has retired on 30.06.2011 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.
March 19, 2026
D. Tamang
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…