Disposed

Ram Pratap v. Director Sports , Sports Directorate U.P. Khel Bhawan , Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025WRIA/14229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily-wager sought pension under the old pension scheme with service counted from 1989 to regularization. Court disposed of the writ permitting a fresh representation to be decided by reasoned order within six weeks in light of its earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh representation; authority directed to decide it by reasoned order within six weeks in light of Jai Ram Sharma judgment.

Ram Pratap Vs Director Sports , Sports… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14229 of 2025

Ram Pratap

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Director Sports , Sports Directorate U.P. Khel Bhawan , Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶11

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

¶12

2. Present petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-

¶13

" (i) ISSUE, a writ order or direction in the
nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite
parties to provide the pension as well as
pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme
to the petitioner from the date of his retirement
after counting the services rendered by him
regularly on the basis of daily wages w.e.f.
05.07.1989 till his regularization i.e.
02.02.2006 in the light of the Judgement and
order dated 04.11.2025 passed by this Hon'ble in
WRIT A No. 731 of 2024 (Jai Ram Sharma Versus
State of U.P. & ors) in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) ISSUE, a writ order or direction in the
nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite
parties to add/ count the petitioner's services

¶15

¶16

WRIA No. 14229 of 2025

¶17

rendered by him regularly on the basis of daily
wages on the post of Ground Staff w.e.f
05.07.1989 till his regularization i.e.
02.02.2006 and give him all consequential service
benefits under the old pension scheme in
accordance with law."

¶18

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that his
case is completely covered by judgment rendered by
this Court in Jai Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and
others [WRIT - A No. - 731 of 2024]

¶19

4. Since considering petitioner's grievance would
entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to
petitioner to file fresh representation before
opposite party no.1 i.e. Director Sports, Sport
Directorate, Uttar Pradesh Khel Bhawan, Lucknow or
any other competent authority. In case such a
representation is filed, the same is required to be
decided by authority concerned expeditiously by a
reasoned and speaking order in light of aforesaid
judgment, in case the same is applicable, within a
period of six weeks from receipt of representation
of petitioner along with a certified copy of this
order.

¶20

5. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands
finally disposed of.

¶21

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶22

December 10, 2025

¶23

Subodh/-

¶24

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

Ram Pratap v. Director Sports , Sports Directorate U.P. Khel Bhawan , Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap v. Director Sports , Sports Directorate U.P. Khel Bhawan , Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Singh Sachan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addi. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt.Lko. and Another

Mohd. Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Saurabh Chandra Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Atul Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Sandhya Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agri. Lko and 4 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others