Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without entering into merits, on the innocuous prayer: petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation with the writ petition and certified copy of the order before respondent no.2 within two weeks; respondent no.2 to decide the representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. The substantive claim for pension, retiral benefits and 18% interest on delayed payment was not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to forthwith grant pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner, with interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues. +1 more

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits, the Court allowed the petitioner's innocuous prayer that his pending representations before respondent no.2 be decided in a time-bound manner, no objection having been raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file a fresh detailed representation, along with the present writ petition and a certified copy of the order, before respondent no.2 within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

Respondent no.2 was directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving it.ratio¶20
With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition was disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., September 17, 2025; WRIT - A No. 14029 of 2025): The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith grant pension and other retiral benefits with interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues, or alternatively a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide his claim within a stipulated time. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without entering into the merits, made an innocuous prayer that his several representations pending before respondent no.2 be decided in a time-bound manner; the learned Standing Counsel opposed the petition on merits but did not oppose this prayer. Without entering into merits, the Court allowed the innocuous prayer and directed the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation along with the writ petition and certified copy of the order before respondent no.2 within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy, and directed respondent no.2 to decide the representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks of receiving it. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 14029 of 2025

Virendra Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Nipun Singh,	Sumit Suri .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 32

HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following main prayer:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith grant pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner from the date it fell due till the date of actual payment.

(ii) Or in alternative issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and other retiral benefits within a time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, without entering into merits of the case, made innocuous prayer that his several representations which are pending before respondent no.2, may be directed to be decided in time bound manner.

Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents vehemently opposed the petition on merit, but has not opposed the prayer as made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned

WRIA No. 14029 of 2025

2

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents and perused the contents made in the writ petition.

Without entering into merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as no objection made on behalf of learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a fresh detailed representation along with the present writ petition as well as certified copy of this order before respondent no.2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After receiving the said representation, respondent no.2 is directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving of the said representation.

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.

September 17, 2025

Pratima

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad