Azad vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Azad vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the writ petitioner to file a comprehensive representation with self-attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order before Respondent no.4 by 28.11.2025; Respondent no.4 to consider the claim for post-retiral benefits strictly in accordance with law within two months of production of the certified copy, bearing in mind the stayed recovery amount and the admissibility of pension.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner is admissible to post-retiral benefits/pension, and how the amount that is the subject matter of the petition (Service Single No.30619 of 2018) wherein recovery has been stayed bears upon that claim.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with a self-attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.4 by 28.11.2025.

Ratio / Principle

On such representation, Respondent no.4 shall consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

In deciding the claim, the authority is to bear in mind (i) the amount which is the subject matter of the petition wherein recovery has been stayed, and (ii) the issue of admissibility of pension to the writ petitioner.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Azad, a retired Mate (appointed 26.03.1990, services regularized 12.05.2011, superannuated 31.03.2022) whose grievance was non-payment of post-retiral benefits. The Court directed the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with a self-attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.4 by 28.11.2025, and directed Respondent no.4 to consider the claim strictly in accordance with law within two months of production of the certified copy, bearing in mind (i) the amount which is the subject matter of Service Single No.30619 of 2018 (Munne Khan and 45 others vs. State of U.P.), wherein recovery has been stayed pursuant to the interim order dated 22.10.2018, and (ii) the issue of admissibility of pension to the petitioner. No order was passed on merits; entitlement was left for adjudication by Respondent no.4.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17203 of 2025

Azad

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Agnivesh, Jadu Nandan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Heard Sri Agnivesh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Vivek Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was appointed on 26.03.1990 on the post of Mate and thereafter on 12.05.2011, the services of the writ petitioner stood regularized and a recovery order came to be issued on 22.02.2018, against which the writ petitioner preferred proceedings being Service Single No.30619 of 2018 (Munne Khan and 45 others vs. State of U.P.), in which interim order was accorded 22.10.2018 and the writ petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2022. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he has not been paid post-retiral benefits.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, in case, the amount of recovery has been stayed, then the writ petitioner's claim needs to be considered deducting the said amount and paying the postretiral benefits, however, the same is dependent upon the fact whether the writ petitioner is admissible to post-retiral benefits or not. He submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs adjudication at the first instance by Respondent no.4.

Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.4 by 28.11.2025, who on the said motion shall proceed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind the issue

WRIA No. 17203 of 2025

2

relatable to an amount, which is the subject matter in a petition, wherein recovery has been stayed and also the issue about the admissibility of the pension to the writ petition.

November 17, 2025 N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad