Disposed

Utpal Kumar De v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025/7977/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought direction for release of medical reimbursement. State counsel produced instructions showing the deducted Rs.4,700 had already been credited to the petitioner's account. Nothing remained to adjudicate; petition consigned to record without adverse effect on benefits already granted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Utpal Kumar De Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 7977 of 2025

Utpal Kumar De

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko And Another

¶7

Resources Deptt. Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Maurya, Geeta Shakya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶11

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned to release total amount of medical reimbursement in the account of the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned State Counsel has adverted to letter appended as Annexure - 4 to the writ petition dated 21.05.2025 to submit that petitioner was in fact seeking reimbursement of Rs.4,700/which had been deducted from the medical reimbursement bills. He has been provided written instructions dated 13.08.2025 which are taken on record and as per which Rs.4,700/has already been credited in the account of petitioner on 01.08.2025.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner does not have any instructions regarding the same.

¶14

From perusal of the letter dated 21.05.2025 submitted by petitioner through Speed Post, it is evident that petitioner had sought reimbursement of Rs.1,54,706/- but was granted reimbursement only Rs.1,50,006/- and therefore claimed difference amount of Rs. 4,700/-.

¶15

However, in view of the instructions and indication of details of amount credited in the account of petitioner, nothing more remains to

¶16

WRIA No. 7977 of 2025

¶17

¶18

be adjudicated upon in this petition, which is accordingly consigned to record without any adverse effect upon benefits already granted to the petitioner.

¶19

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶20

December 4, 2025

¶21

lakshman

¶22

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Utpal Kumar De v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Utpal Kumar De v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko and Another

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

Shashi Bhushan Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. and 2 Others

Chiroji Lal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sinchai Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Bilas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. and 2 Others

Shiv Ram Singh Yadav (PNO-842356206) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Kurmi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. and 2 Others