Ramesh Chand Tomer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ramesh Chand Tomer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to amend the date of initial appointment in prayer no. 1 and to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 3 (Director, Ayurvedic Services, Government of U.P., Lucknow), which is to be decided expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks; petition otherwise finally disposed of. No monetary relief awarded by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension and other outstanding post-retiral dues with arrears from his initial appointment dated 06.10.1986, along with interest, at parity with similarly situated employees of the Department who have allegedly already been granted such benefits.

Court's answer

Since considering the petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 3, i.e. Director, Ayurvedic Services, Government of U.P., Lucknow; in case such representation is filed, it is required to be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty to amend the date of initial appointment in prayer no. 1 of the petition during the course of the day.

Key takeaways

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands finally disposed of.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - A No. 12155 of 2025 (Manish Mathur, J.; decided October 15, 2025): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a retiree seeking payment of pension and other outstanding post-retiral dues with arrears from his initial appointment on 06.10.1986, together with interest, on the ground that similarly situated employees of the Department had already been granted such benefits. Observing that the grievance would entail factual aspects, the Court did not adjudicate entitlement and finally disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 3 (Director, Ayurvedic Services, Government of U.P., Lucknow), to be decided expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receipt of the representation with a certified copy of the order; liberty was also granted to amend the date of initial appointment in prayer no. 1. No precedent was cited or relied upon and no quantum was awarded.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 12155 of 2025

Ramesh Chand Tomer

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag Govt. Lko. And 3 Others

ov. o. n ers		.	....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Mohammad Pratap Singh : C.S.C.	Tauseef	Siddiqui, Shiv
Court No.- 7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

1A. Learned counsel for petitioner is granted liberty to amend the date of initial appointment in prayer no.1 of the petition during the course of day.

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to opposite parties to make payment of pension and other outstanding post-retiral dues along with arrears with effect from the date of his initial appointment on 06.10.1986. Interest on the same has also been sought.

It has been submitted that similarly situated employees of the Department as the petitioner have already been granted aforesaid benefits which have not been provided to petitioner.

Since considering petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioner to file fresh representation before opposite party no.3 i.e. Director, Ayurvedic Services, Government of U.P., Lucknow. In case such a representation is filed, the same is required to be decided by authority concerned expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from receipt of representation of petitioner along with a certified copy of this order.

WRIA No. 12155 of 2025

2

With aforesaid direction, the petition stands finally disposed of .

(Manish Mathur,J.)

October 15, 2025

Subodh/-

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