Disposed¶16

Umendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025WRIA/18013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Old pension scheme; mandamus; fresh application/representation; representation dated 10.07.2025; respondent no.2 Commissioner Director Local Bodies, Lucknow; reasoned and speaking order; opportunity of hearing; disposal with directions without deciding merits; State of U.P.; Umendra Kumar; Allahabad High Court; Manju Rani Chauhan; WRIT - A No. - 18013 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a fresh application/representation before respondent no.2, Commissioner Director Local Bodies, Lucknow, within three weeks; respondent no.2 directed to consider and decide it strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after proper opportunity of hearing, preferably within six weeks of production of the certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment. ¶16

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the respondents to provide the petitioner the benefit of the old pension scheme. +1 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The Court disposed of the writ petition expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

Key takeaways

The petitioner may make a fresh application/representation ventilating all his grievances, supported by documents, before respondent no.2 (Commissioner Director Local Bodies, Lucknow) within three weeks, along with a certified copy of the order; on such representation being made, respondent no.2 shall consider and decide it strictly in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order after giving proper opportunity of hearing, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy, if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), Writ - A No. - 18013 of 2025, Umendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, decided December 1, 2025: writ petition seeking (i) benefit of the old pension scheme via mandamus and (ii) decision of the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2025, disposed of WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits. The petitioner was given liberty to make a fresh application/representation ventilating all grievances, supported by documents, before respondent no.2 (Commissioner Director Local Bodies, Lucknow) within three weeks along with a certified copy of the order; respondent no.2 is to consider and decide it strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after giving proper opportunity of hearing, preferably within six weeks of production of the certified copy, if there is no legal impediment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 18013 of 2025

Umendra Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohd. Aslam Khan	Khan, Mohd. Mateen
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 52

¶6

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

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

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representation dated 10.07.2025 in accordance with law."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has moved representation before the competent authority, for redressal of his grievance, but nothing has been done till date. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection in case the petitioner submits a fresh representation/application, before the competent authority along with all relevant documents, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by

¶14

WRIA No. 18013 of 2025

¶15

¶16

providing that petitioner may make fresh application/representation, ventilating all his grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.2 Commissioner Director Local Bodies, 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 a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶18

December 1, 2025 Rahul.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anupam Kishor and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Bindu Prabha vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rekha Rani vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shishpal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukh Ram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others