Disposed¶17

Shyam Dhar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025/11367/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pay parity; higher pay and higher pension granted to juniors; claim for enhanced pay and pension; disposal with liberty to file representation; time-bound decision by respondent No.3 within six weeks; reasoned and speaking order; consent final disposal; writ disposed without examining merits; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 11367 of 2025; Abdul Moin, J.; State of U.P. Basic Education Department; September 23, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to submit individual representations within ten days before respondent No.3, which is to endeavour to decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order along with the representations; writ petition disposed of without examining merits. ¶17

Shyam Dhar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose juniors have received higher pay and are now receiving higher pension, are entitled to enhanced pay and pension from the respondents.

¶11

Court's answer

The petitioners were permitted to submit individual representations within ten days before respondent No.3.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition was being finally decided.

¶10

Key takeaways

Respondent No.3 shall endeavour to decide the petitioners' representations by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, along with the representations.ratio¶13
The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case; the writ petition stood disposed of with the aforesaid direction.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 11367 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin, J.), decided September 23, 2025. Shyam Dhar Verma and another, aggrieved that although their juniors had received higher pay and were now receiving higher pension, the respondents (State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Basic Education, and others) had failed to grant them enhanced pay and pension, approached the Court. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was finally decided without entering into merits: the petitioners were permitted to submit individual representations within ten days before respondent No.3, who was directed to endeavour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order along with the representations. The Court expressly made clear that it had not gone into the merits of the case.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 11367 of 2025

¶3

Shyam Dhar Verma And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Akansha Pathak, Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Yadav

¶7

Court No. - 4

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3.

¶10

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite their juniors having received higher pay and consequently, are now receiving higher pension, the respondents have failed to give enhanced pay and pension the petitioners.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to submit a representation before the respondent No.3 which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 have no objection.

¶13

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submit individual representations within ten days from today before the respondent No.3 then the respondent No.3 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

¶14

WRIA No. 11367 of 2025

¶15

¶16

along with representation.

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶19

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶20

September 23, 2025

¶21

Pachhere/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyam Dhar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Dhar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Ravinder Singh Bedi Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli Thru. Its Executive Director and 3 Others

Mirza Swalesh Baig and 21 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Pankaj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Lakhan Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Vijendra Kumar Verma and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko. and 3 Others