Basnat Prasad and 25 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Basnat Prasad and 25 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: petitioners permitted to file fresh applications/representations ventilating all grievances with supporting documents before respondent no.2 (The Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Anubhag (1), Govt. of U.P., Anubhag-1, Lucknow) within three weeks along with a certified copy of the order; respondent no.2 to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after giving proper opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of production of the certified copy, if there is no legal impediment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are to be commanded and directed to extend post retiral benefits, including pension and 40% back wages, to the petitioners in view of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9165-9172 of 2009 (prayer no. i). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Relief no. (i) was not pressed by the petitioners and their submissions were confined to a direction upon the respondent authority to decide their representation.

Key takeaways

Considering the facts and circumstances but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of.ratio¶17
The petitioners may make fresh applications/representations ventilating all their grievances, supported by documents, before respondent no.2 (The Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Anubhag (1), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow) within three weeks with a certified copy of the order; respondent no.2 shall then consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after giving proper opportunity of hearing, preferably within two months from production of the certified copy, if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), disposing of WRIT - A No. - 17707 of 2025 (Basnat Prasad and 25 others v. State of U.P. and another) on November 25, 2025, declined to express any opinion on merits. The petition sought (i) mandamus for extension of post retiral benefits including pension and 40% back wages in view of the Apex Court judgment dated 09.09.2015 in Civil Appeal No.9165-9172 of 2009, and (ii) a mandamus to decide the petitioners' representation dated 21.05.2025. As the controversy on prayer (i) was already pending before the Court (with similar claims rejected in other cases), counsel did not press relief (i) and confined submissions to prayer (ii). Without deciding merits, the Court permitted the petitioners to make fresh applications/representations, ventilating all grievances with supporting documents, before respondent no.2, The Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Anubhag (1), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, within three weeks with a certified copy of the order; respondent no.2 was directed to consider and decide such representation strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after proper opportunity of hearing, preferably within two months, if there is no legal impediment.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17707 of 2025

Basnat Prasad And 25 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Arun Kumar Srivastava, Priyanka Srivastava, Shashank Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 52

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to extend the post retiral benefits including pension and 40% back wages to the petitioners in view of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2015 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9165-9172 of 2009.

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents consider the claim of the petitioners and decide their representation dated 21.05.2025 in view of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2015 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9165-9172 of 2009."

It has been informed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the controversy with respect to prayer no.1 is pending consideration before this Court, wherein such claim in other cases has been rejected.

On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to not press the relief no. (i) and confines his submissions for a direction upon the respondent authority to decide the representation of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that for ventilation of their grievances, petitioners have approached the authority concerned by moving representations. However, despite several representations moved by the petitioners, no heed has yet been paid.

Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that in case petitioners move a fresh applications/representations before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the

WRIA No. 17707 of 2025

2

petitioners may make fresh applications/representations, ventilating all their grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.2-The Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Anubhag (1) Govt. of U.P. Anubhag-1 Lucknow, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.2 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

November 25, 2025 DS

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

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