The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court noted that the claim for provisional pension was already met by a previous order and the issue of recovery was subjudice in another matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16353
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 460 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Daya Shanker Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
A. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to provide the petitioner's entire retiral benefits with interest excluding Rs.17.44 Lakhs which is imposed on petitioner as recovery for alleged irregularity by respondent no.2 and provide the regular pension to the petitioner month to month.
Order Date :- 4.2.2025 S.A.
Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for provisional pension is maintainable in a second petition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jay Prakash Mishra
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
