Disposed

Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024WRIA/16511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this pension delay case, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petitioner liberty to approach the Department for pension release without deciding the merit, directing the State to respond within two weeks and decide within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move fresh representation; opposite party directed to decide within 8 weeks via speaking order.

Gaya Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29909

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16511 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Gaya Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko.And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jyoti Sikka,Kumar Ayush

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Md Irfan, advocate, holding brief of Sri Kumar Ayush, counsel for opposite party no. 3, Sri Vijay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶8

Instant petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

¶9

"1. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties by directing them particularly the opposite parties no.2 & 3 to release the amount of pension to the petitioner which is due from the month of September 2015 and to pay the pension regularly.

¶10

2. issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the special circumstances of the case.

¶11

3. allow the writ petition with costs."

¶12

After argument 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 fresh representation while raising all his claim before opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 may be directed to decide the same within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

Learned counsels appearing for opposite parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶14

In view the above and without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to move afresh representation before opposite party no. 2, within period of two weeks and if,

¶15

such representation is made, the opposite party no. 2 is directed to decide the same with speaking and reasoned order, within further period of eight weeks.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Mayank

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko.

Sukhchain Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saddam @ Saddam Husain and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Shiv Singh Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited Ashok Marg Lucknow and Others

Girish Chandra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunications Ministry Communications New Delhi and 2 Others