Dismissed

Smt. Prabhawati Devi v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2025/55/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application against a 2023 judgment concerning pensionary/defence benefits, with an application to condone a 774-day delay. Delay was condoned, but the court found no error apparent on the face of the record and rejected the review, noting arguments under the 2010 Regulations were not raised earlier.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Prabhawati Devi Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 55 of 2025

Smt. Prabhawati Devi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence New Delhi And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Satya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶8

Court No. - 2

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

(C. M. Application No. 01 of 2025)

¶11

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application.

¶12

The office has reported a delay of 774 days in filing of the review application.

¶13

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application.

¶14

Reasons given in the affidavit are sufficient.

¶15

The delay in filing the review application is condoned.

¶16

The application is disposed of.

¶17

The review application shall be treated to have been filed within time.

¶18

Order on review application

¶19

This review application has been filed praying for review of judgement and order dated 18.01.2023 passed by one of us sitting alongwith Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Sinha, as he was then holding Court.

¶20

The matter has been nominated to this Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶21

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at some length. He has failed

¶22

CMRAD No. 55 of 2025

¶23

¶24

to point out any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgement for which review has been prayed for.

¶25

The arguments that have been raised on the basis of Regulations of 2010, as amended from time to time, was not raised before the Court at the time when the case was decided.

¶26

Rehearing cannot be given to the petitioner, the application for review is rejected.

¶27

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶28

September 12, 2025

¶29

Darpan Sharma

¶30

Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Prabhawati Devi v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Prabhawati Devi v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sameer and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Gopal Vishwakarma @ Banshiwale Baba Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Heeralal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Smt. Prabhawati Devi vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others