Disposed

Dayaram and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025WRIA/18572/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought post-retiral benefits including pension and 40% back wages relying on an Apex Court order of 09.09.2015, and decision on their representation. The court, without expressing opinion on merits, directed petitioners to file fresh representations before respondent no.2 within three weeks and directed that authority to decide by reasoned speaking order within two months after hearing

What did the court decide?

Direction to file fresh representations before respondent no.2 within three weeks; respondent no.2 to decide by reasoned speaking order within two months after hearing.

Dayaram and 5 Others vs State of Up and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 18572 of 2025

¶3

Dayaram And 5 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Srivastava, Bajrang Lal Srivastava, Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 52

¶6

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

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

¶9

"(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.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner 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."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for ventilation of their grievances, the petitioners have approached the authority concerned by moving representations. However, despite several representations moved by the petitioners, no heed has yet been paid.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

WRIA No. 18572 of 2025

¶15

¶16

present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the 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 a 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.

¶17

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶18

December 10, 2025 Rahul.

¶19

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

Dayaram and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayaram and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km. Dimple Singh and 12 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt. Laxmeen vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Naresh vs Managing Director Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar Rai vs State of U.P and 5 Others