Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14472 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Mr. Vinay Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3, Mr. Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. Instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:- " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay forthwith the difference of the interest amount which was not calculated by taking in to consideration the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and is entitled for higher percentage of interest which is provided to senior citizens under several schemes of the Government, in the interest of justice.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 3 to take decision for ensuring payment of the difference of the interest amount which have been given to the petitioner without taking in to consideration the fact that he is a senior citizen and is entitled for higher percentage of interest which is admissible to senior citizens under several schemes of the Government, in the interest of justice.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

(iv) Allow the writ petition with costs." The grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the interest has been paid, but the difference of interest has not been paid as yet. The petitioner is disputing the interest which has been paid by the respondent-corporation, in furtherance to the direction made by this Court, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinay Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Naresh Chandra Mehrotra Ramesh Chandra Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) as that has not rightly been calculated by the respondent-authorities. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 and he may be directed to consider & decide the same, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection to the contention aforesaid. Be that as it may, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation within period of 15 days, and if such representation is moved within aforesaid period, the respondent no. 3/Managing Director, U.P. State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow, is hereby directed to consider and decide the same, within further period of six weeks, in accordance with law, from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of. December 16, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 14472 of 2025 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench