Allahabad High Court
PROF. RAVI PRASAD SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The court held that the petitioner must first file a fresh application before the respondent, who must then decide the claim within a stipulated period, and therefore the writ relief was not granted.
Summary
Prof. Ravi Prasad Srivastava, a government employee, filed a writ petition seeking a court order directing the Director of Education (Higher Education), U.P., to sanction his gratuity and encashment of 79 days of earned leave. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (Civil Appeal No. 005602 of 2024) to support his claim. The State contended that the petitioner must first file a fresh application before the competent authority. The Allahabad High Court, after hearing counsel, declined to grant the writ relief and instead directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation within three weeks, and the respondent to decide the claim within six weeks, issuing a reasoned order. Consequently, the petition was disposed without any substantive order on the gratuity and leave encashment claim.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent authority is obligated to sanction gratuity and earned‑leave encashment without a fresh application by the petitioner.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the Supreme Court decision in Avdhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.
- Whether the court can prescribe a time‑bound procedure for the authority to consider and decide the claim.
Subjects
- gratuity
- earned leave encashment
- writ petition
- administrative law
- direction
- fresh application
- higher education director
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7262 of 2026
Prof. Ravi Prasad Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following
reliefs:-
"i) A writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondent no.2 to forthwith sanction
gratuity and encashment of outstanding Earned Leave to the petitioner within the period to be specified
by this Hon'ble Court.
ii) A writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to disburse to the petitioner
total amount of Gratuity and Encashment of outstanding Earned Leave for 79 days forthwith;
iii) any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case'
iv) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the
petitioner regarding the sanction of gratuity and the encashment of
outstanding Earned Leave is still pending consideration before
Respondent No.2. Therefore, a direction may be issued to Respondent
No.2 to decide the petitioner’s claim within a stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is
entitled to the aforesaid payment in view of the law laid down by the
WRIA No. 7262 of 2026
2
Apex Court in the case of Avdhesh Kumar Singh and Others vs. State
of U.P. and Others, decided on 30.04.2024 passed in Civil Appeal
No.005602 of 2024 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23788/2014).
Therefore, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner may be
considered in light of the aforesaid judgment.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that in case petitioner
moves a fresh application/representation before the competent authority,
the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the
petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the
petitioner may make fresh application/representation, ventilating all his
grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the
respondent no.2; Director of Education (Higher Education), U.P.
Prayagraj, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of
this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.2 shall
make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in
accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after
giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from
the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal
impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
May 14, 2026
Jitendra/-
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…