Nakchhed and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nakchhed and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' challenge to the rejection orders, mounted five years after their father's demise in 2020 (and long after the 2009 rejection), is barred as a stale claim for service benefits. +1 more

Court's answer

In the considered opinion of this court, the claim of petitioner is a stale one.

Ratio / Principle

Even otherwise, the petitioner would not have any independent right to challenge the same once their father, who was the original beneficiary, failed to challenge the order dated 31st July, 2009 during his lifetime.

Key takeaways

In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad H.C. (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7, single judge (Manish Mathur, J.), decided October 13, 2025: Writ - A No. - 12062 of 2025 (Nakchhed And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 4 Others) dismissed at the admission stage itself, parties bearing their own costs. Petitioners challenged orders dated 31st July 2009 and 5th November 2009 rejecting the representation dated 16th March 2009 of their late father pertaining to service benefit. Held: (i) the claim of petitioner is a stale one - the father had secured mere disposal-by-direction of writ petition No. 737 (S/S) of 2009, the ensuing rejection order dated 31st July 2009 stood unchallenged until his demise in the year 2020, and the petitioners approached the court only five years after his death; (ii) even otherwise, the petitioner would not have any independent right to challenge the same once their father, who was the original beneficiary, failed to challenge the order dated 31st July, 2009 during his lifetime. Accordingly, this court found no good ground to grant indulgence. Context: an earlier petition (writ A No. 7402 of 2025) seeking post-retiral benefits with arrears for services rendered by their father late Ram Pal since 2nd February 2001 had been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10th July 2025 primarily because the orders impugned were not challenged, and liberty to file a fresh petition was not granted.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 12062 of 2025

Nakchhed And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.K. Mishra, Rakesh Pratap Singh, Rama Shanker Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Subodh Kumar Gupta learned state counsel for opposite parties.

Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 31st July 2009 and 5th November 2009 whereby representation dated 16th March 2009 submitted by father of petitioner pertaining to service benefit was rejected.

Earlier as well the petitioner had filed writ A No. 7402 of 2025 seeking a direction to authorities concerned for providing post-retiral benefits along with arrears with regard to services rendered by their father late Ram Pal since 2nd February 2001. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10th July 2025 primarily on the ground that the orders impugned were not challenged. Liberty however was not granted to petitioner for filing a fresh petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the relief so sought would constitute a recurring cause of action to petitioner due to which now the error of the earlier writ petition has been cured by challenging the orders whereby representation was rejected.

Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of written instructions dated 9th October 2025, copy of which is taken on record. He submits that petitioner's father passed away in the year 2020 without challenging the rejection order dated 31st July 2009. The present petition has also been filed after five years thereafter without indicating any cogent reasons for filing this petition so belatedly. It is also submitted that the rejection order dated 31st July 2009 was passed on the merits of the case and was not challenged by petitioner's father and therefore petitioner would not have any independent right to challenge the same.

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and

WRIA No. 12062 of 2025

2

perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's father had earlier filed writ petition No. 737 (S/S) of 2009 seeking service benefits from the date of initial appointment. The said petition was disposed of under direction for deciding his representation, which was rejected by means of order dated 31st July 2009. The said order was never challenged by petitioner's father till the year 2020 when he said to have passed away. The petitioner has also challenged the said order after five years since demise of their father.

In the considered opinion of this court, the claim of petitioner is a stale one and even otherwise the petitioner would not have any independent right to challenge the same once their father who was the original beneficiary failed to challenge the order dated 31st July, 2009 during his lifetime.

In view of aforesaid this court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence.The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

October 13, 2025 prabhat

(Manish Mathur,J.)

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