Vijya Foundation Man Power Recruitment Agency Thru. Proprietor Piyusha Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11478 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondent and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3- Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur.
This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.-3 to pay Rs.1067640.00 (Rs.83344.00 as remaining amount for July/August 2023+46475.00 as remaining service charge +937821.00 as salary, EPFP & ESIC of 95 workers for October 2023) to the petitioner."
It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner runs a business to provide manpower to Government Departments and has been duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax at Goods and Services Department.
The respondent no.2 invited a tender for manpower outsourcing services for the posts of Computer Operator, Driver, Pump Operator, Electrician, Mali, Office Peon, Sweeper and Multi Tasker. The petitioner Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sriniwas Bajpai Vijya Foundation Man Power Recruitment Agency Thru. Proprietor Piyusha Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
applied on GeM Portal and was allotted the work for a period of one year on 14.10.2022. The petitioner raised his bill and some payment has been made to him, but certain payment has been denied and it has been informed to the petitioner that he has not deposited EPF and ESIC Challan.
It has been submitted that the petitioner has represented along with copies of Challan and the report of the respondent no.3 is misleading. The representation of the petitioner remained pending. The petitioner prays that an appropriate decision be taken in this matter by the respondent.
Without entering into the merits of the case of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.04.2024, in accordance with law, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. November 25, 2025 Rahul WRIC No. 11478 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.