Smt. Kiran Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025WRIA/11030/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kiran Srivastava v. State of U.P.; WRIT - A No. 11030 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Court No. 30; Manjive Shukla, J.; order dated September 24, 2025; post-retiral dues; family pension; medical reimbursement Rs.14,39,199/-; superannuation retirement 31.03.2024; death of pensioner 12.07.2025; widow petitioner; non-payment of retiral benefits; penury; categorical instructions from Standing Counsel; fixing responsibility of erring officers; next listing 07.10.2025.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Kiran Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 11030 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Kiran Srivastava

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Brij	Mohan	Singh,	Umesh	Chandra
	Srivas	tava, Ume	sh Pratap	Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C	.

¶9

Court No. - 30

¶10

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶11

Heard Sri U.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

¶12

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner was a government servant and he, after attaining the age of the superannuation, retired from service on 31.03.2024 and thereafter, he had died on 12.07.2025. It has further been contended that inspite of death of petitioner's husband, till date she has not been paid post-retiral dues admissible to her husband and the family pension.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that not only the post retiral dues, the medical reimbursement bills amounting Rs.14,39,199/- have also not been cleared and paid to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that due to apathy shown by the respondents, petitioner had reached in the stage of penury and it is very hard for her to live her life.

¶14

Let this matter be listed on 07.10.2025, as fresh.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to take categorical instructions in the matter particularly on the point, as to why till date dues admissible to the petitioner have not been cleared off.

¶16

It is made clear that if on the next date this Court comes to the conclusion that there has been reluctance on the part of the respondents, the Court will proceed to fix responsibility of the erring officers.

¶17

September 24, 2025 Renu/-

¶18

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Kiran Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Kiran Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satyendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. (P. W. D.) U.P. and 6 Others

Mohan Thakur vs Shri M. Devraj Prin Secy. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amarendra Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and Another

U.P. X Ray Technician Association Lko. Thru. Its President Ram Manohar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Laxmi Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shatrohan @ Sabhodhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others