Disposed

Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2025WRIA/6525/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions by Bridge Corporation employees seeking arrears of 6th Pay Commission from 01.01.2006 to 25.03.2010. The court found the rejection order made only passing reference to binding judgments and ignored Board recommendations, quashed it and directed a fresh decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.04.2024 quashed; respondent No.1 directed to pass fresh order within three months in view of earlier judgment dated 24.01.2024.

Ram Khelawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38203

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6525 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Khelawan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

¶4

2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11290 of 2024 Petitioner :- Lallu Ram Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

¶5

3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2489 of 2025 Petitioner :- Muneer Alam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi,Kalapanath,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

¶6

4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3348 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rama Kant Tiwari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi,Kalapanath,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

¶7

5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3413 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Shakal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi,Kalapanath,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

¶8

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶9

1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nitin Mathur, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State No.1 & 2 and Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶10

2 . Learned counsels for the parties contend that the issue involved in all the writ petitions are same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear all the writ petitions together and they are being decided by way of a common judgement. For convenience, facts of WRIT- A No. - 6525 of 2024 are being taken.

¶11

3 . Under challenge is the order dated 30.04.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of the arrears of 6th Pay Commission with effect from

¶12

01.01.2006 till 25.03.2010 has been rejected.

¶13

4 . Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.10172 of 2023 In Re Ram Khelawan vs State of U.P. & Ors . This Court vide order dated 24.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, had disposed of the petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Civil Secretariat, Government of U.P. to take a final decision with regard to the recommendation dated 20.03.2020 as has been made by the Bridge Corporation indicating that it had created a corpus of Rs.32.39 crores for payment of arrears to its employees. The writ Court also directed the respondents to consider the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors vs Prabhu Narain Sharma & Ors: Special Appeal No.64 of 2006 and other connected matters, judgment rendered in the case of Triloki Nath Tiwari and Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors: Writ Petition No.4986 of 2013 and other connected matters as well as in the case of U.P. Mandi Parishad Karmachari Sangh through President Lko vs State of U.P. & Ors. Writ A No.7498 of 2014 .

¶14

5 . The respondents vide the order impugned have rejected the claim of the petitioner but have only given a passing reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Triloki Nath Tiwari (supra) without considering as to what has been decided by this Court.

¶15

6 . A perusal of the impugned order would also indicate that the recommendation of the Board of Directors dated 20.03.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, which has been sent by the Managing Director to the State Government, indicates about a corpus of Rs.32.39 crores being created for the purpose of payment of arrears which have not been paid. Another recommendation, which was made by the Managing Director dated 29.12.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2, has also not been considered.

¶16

7 . Considering the aforesaid more particularly the final judgment of this Court dated 24.01.2024 in alleged pursuance of which impugned order has been passed which prima facie indicates that the judgments which were required to be considered by the respondents, have not been considered in a proper perspective rather only a passing reference has been made apart from the fact that recommendation(s) of the Managing Director also not been considered, as such order dated 30.04.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition is quashed.

¶17

8 . The writ petition is disposed of .

¶18

9 . Respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made above as well as judgment of this Court dated 24.1.2024 passed in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra).

¶19

10 . Let a decision in this regard be taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.7.2025

¶21

prateek

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Pratap Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Besic Eduaction and Ors.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhawna Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Appar Mukhya Sachiv Basic Education andORS

Lallu Ram Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Khelawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhir Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and Another