Dismissed¶21

Paramshukh Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025WRIA/14697/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT-A No. 14697 of 2025; Prakash Padia, J.; decided 10.11.2025; retired employees; commutation of pension; restoration period of commuted amount; representations dated 28.05.2025 and 20.08.2025; recovery beyond mathematical recovery period of 10 years 11 months; related judgment Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava, Writ A No. 5617 of 2024, decided 28.05.2025; State Government decision dated 25.09.2025; petition dismissed as not pressed; liberty to challenge order before appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed; petitioners given liberty to challenge the State Government's order dated 25.09.2025 before an appropriate forum. ¶21

Paramshukh Tiwari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14697 of 2025

¶3

Paramshukh Tiwari And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anand Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bipin Bihari Pandey, C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vipin Bihari, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:-

¶13

A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding to examine the grievances of the retired employees regarding the period of restoration of the commuted amount, entertaining and considering the Petitioners representations dated 28.05.2025 and 20.08 2025 of the Petitioners.

¶14

B. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cease from realizing any excess amount from the pension of the petitioners on the pretext of realizing the commutation amount which has been illegally deducted after the expiry of the mathematical recovery period of 10 years 11 months, as the commuted amount already stands fully covered from their respective dates of commutation.

¶15

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered with the judgement and order passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ A No5617 of 2024 Inre; Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava & others Vs.

¶16

WRIA No. 14697 of 2025

¶17

¶18

State of U.P. and others decided on 28.05.2025 In this view of the matter, it is argued that the present petition be also disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava (supra) .

¶19

On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the judgement and order passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava (supra), a decision has already been taken by the State Government on 25.09.2025, copy of the said decision place on record. In this view of the matter, it is argued that once a decision has been taken by the State Government vide order dated 25.09.2025, the present petition be dismissed.

¶20

After going through the same, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners to dismiss the present petition as not press with liberty to challenge the order dated 25.09.2025 taken by the State Government before appropriate forum.

¶21

In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 25.09.2025 taken by the State Government, if so advice.

¶22

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶23

November 10, 2025 saqlain

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Paramshukh Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramshukh Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kishor vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subash Chandra Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aneesh Kumar Sonkar vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrawan Nigam vs State of U.P. and 4 Others