Pawan Kumar Singh Nd 42 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

Heard Sri Murli Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶15

The petitioners have preferred the aforesaid petition with the common prayer which reads as follows:-

¶16

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the answering respondents to put the petitioners in Old Pension Scheme applicable prior to 01.04.2005 and also direct the answering respondents to make necessary deductions in funds etc. as admissible under the laws in Old Pension Scheme and petitioners may be treated under the Old Pension Scheme for all purposes of pension.

¶17

The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions have earlier filed Writ A No.15763 of 2024 (Vinod Kumar Sriioners of this petition as well as in

¶18

the connected petition being Writ A No.13518 of 2025 have earlier filed Writ A No.15763 of 2024 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava And 104 Others Vs.

¶19

WRIA No. 18090 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

State of U.P. and others) which was finally disposed of by this Court with certain observations vide order dated 06.05.2025. The order dated 06.05.2025 reads as follows:-

¶22

1. Sri Murli Manohar, learned counsel for petitioners, after arguing for some time, on instructions, submits that petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh with better particulars.

¶23

2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty, as prayed for.

¶24

3. It is observed that while filing fresh petition(s), the deponent will ensure that number of petitioners in one petition may have some limit as well as every petitioner shall specifically authorise deponent by way of filing a notarized affidavit. It would be better, if petitions are filed districtwise.

¶25

After going through the averments made in aforesaid writ petitions, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the observations made in paragraph No.3 of the judgement and order dated 06.05.2025 has not been complied with by the petitioners in its letter and spirit while filing the aforesaid writ petitions. The District Basic Education Officers are the appointing authority of the petitioners but for the reasons best known to the petitioners they were not arrayed respondents. It further transpires that some of the petitioners are working in District Balrampur, Ambedkar Nagar etc. in which the primary jurisdiction lies before the Lucknow Bench of this Court.

¶26

In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid writ petitions be placed before the Bench of Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. as fresh , if possible on 15.12.2025, who passed the order dated 06.05.2025 in Writ A No.15763 of 2024 after obtaining nomination from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶27

WRIA No. 18090 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶30

December 5, 2025 saqlain

¶31

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

Pawan Kumar Singh Nd 42 Others v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Singh Nd 42 Others v. State of Up 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravendra Pal Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mohammad Aslam Khan vs Divisional Commissioner and 2 Others

Gaurav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Chandra Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Committee of Management Gyan Prakash Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vinod Kumar Singh vs Akbal Bahadur Singh and 22 Others