Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DR. JYOTI SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for relief.

Summary

Dr. Jyoti Singh filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to release his gratuity of Rs. 22,60,144 (or a maximum of Rs. 20,00,000) and to pay interest on the delayed payment, as well as to consider his representations dated 11-03-2026 and 21-03-2026 before the Director of Education (Higher). The respondents contended that the grievance should be addressed by the Director of Education and did not oppose a direction for a fresh representation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to rule on the merits and instead ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director within three weeks, with the authority required to decide it within four months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive observation on the gratuity claim.

Issues considered

  • Whether the court should issue a mandamus directing payment of the petitioner’s gratuity and interest.
  • Whether the court should direct the respondent authority to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 11-03-2026 and 21-03-2026.
  • Whether the writ petition is maintainable or should be dismissed in favour of administrative redress.

Subjects

  • gratuity
  • mandamus
  • writ petition
  • representation
  • administrative law
  • delay in payment
  • higher education department

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                        WRIT - A No. - 5573 of 2026

Dr. Jyoti Singh
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                :    Abhishek Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)                :    Ashok Kumar Yadav, C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
                     HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
representing State-respondents and perused the record on board.

2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

     "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the Respondents to forthwith release and disburse the
     Gratuity amount which stands Rs. 22,60,144 or Max 20,00,000/-. due
     upon the Petitioner.

     2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
     the Respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of the aforesaid
     retiral dues, for the period of delay, at such rate as this Hon'ble Court
     may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

     3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
     the competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated
     11.03.2026 & 21.03.2026 submitted by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2
     & 5, in a time-bound manner, within a period as may be fixed by this
     Hon'ble Court."

3. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not been paid gratuity till date
despite the repeated requests made on his behalf.

4. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the University and Sri
Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State-respondents have contended that the grievance of the present petitioner
can be more appropriately redressed by the Director of Education (Higher),
respondent No. 2, and he has no objection, in case, a direction is issued for
                                                                                              WRIA No. 5573 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    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 Director of Education (Higher), respondent No.
                                    2, 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 four months from the date of production of
                                    such representation.

                                    6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.

                                    April 20, 2026
                                    vinay
                                                                                               (Dinesh Pathak,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.