Disposed¶16

Vinod Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sehkarita Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2025WRIA/7234/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Repeated stoppage of pension; successive writ petitions Writ-A No. 6393 of 2024 (disposed 12.08.2024), Writ-A No. 8266 of 2024 (disposed 19.11.2024) and Writ-A No. 7234 of 2025 (disposed 10.7.2025); non-availability of funds with cooperative department not accepted as ground for non-payment of pension; arrears sanctioned and paid vide order dated 09.07.2025; continued payment directed in terms of earlier directions; State of U.P., Prin. Secy. Sehkarita Deptt.; Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.

What did the court decide?

Opposite parties directed to ensure continued payment of pension to the petitioner in terms of the directions issued earlier; arrears having already been sanctioned and paid vide order dated 09.07.2025 as admitted on behalf of the petitioner. ¶16

Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sehkarita Deptt. Lko and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties are liable to provide the petitioner's pension from November 2024 to June 2025, along with interest, and to continue making regular payments. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The plea of non-availability of funds with the cooperative department, given by the authority as the primary reason for non-payment of pension, was not accepted by the Court — the reasoning did not find favour.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The opposite parties were directed to ensure continued payment of pension to the petitioner in terms of the directions issued earlier.

¶16

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that arrears of pension had already been sanctioned and paid vide order dated 09.07.2025, a fact admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, and took a copy of that order on record.¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 7234 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.; Order Date 10.7.2025): Vinod Kumar Shukla sought a direction to the opposite parties to provide his pension from November 2024 to June 2025 with interest and continued regular payment. His pension had previously been stopped twice — Writ-A No. 6393 of 2024 was disposed of on 12.08.2024 with a direction to decide his representation, which was rejected on 12.09.2024; Writ-A No. 8266 of 2024 was disposed of on 19.11.2024 with a direction for payment of pension. Despite that order the pension was again stopped, prompting the present petition. Learned State Counsel produced order dated 09.07.2025 showing that arrears had already been sanctioned and paid, which was admitted by the petitioner's counsel and taken on record. Observing that the authority's plea of non-availability of funds with the cooperative department did not find favour with the Court, it directed the opposite parties to ensure continued payment of pension in terms of the earlier directions, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39247

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7234 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sehkarita Deptt. Lko And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari,Aman Pandey,Jainendra Singh

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to provide pension from the Month November, 2024 till June 2025 along with interest and for continued to make regular payment.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that earlier as well petitioner's pension had been stopped leading to filing of Writ-A No. 6393 of 2024 , which was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2024 directing authority concerned to decide petitioner's representation. In pursuance thereof, petitioner's representation was rejected vide order dated 12.09.2024. Thereafter petitioner filed Writ-A No. 8266 of 2024, which was also disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2024 with the direction for payment of pension to petitioner.

¶12

It is submitted that despite aforesaid order, petitioner's pension has again been stopped leading to filing of present writ petition.

¶13

Learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions has

¶14

produced order dated 09.07.2025 with submission that arrears of pension to petitioner have already been sanctioned and paid and the said fact has been admitted by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of instructions. A copy of order dated 09.07.2025 is taken on record.

¶15

It is also evident from perusal of order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 8266 of 2024 that primary reason given by authority concerned for non-payment of pension was due to non-availability of fund with the cooperative department. The said reasoning did not find favour with this Court.

¶16

In view aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to ensure continued payment of pension to petitioner in terms of direction issued earlier as well.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Virendra

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sehkarita Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sehkarita Deptt. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr.Monika Sharma Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Animal Husbandry

Engineer in Chief Irrigation Deptt. Lucknow Vs U.P.Irrigation Deptt. W.C.M.R.Part Time Emp.Karmchari Sangh

Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Lko. and 6 Others

Rakesh Kumar Nayak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home (Police Services) Lko. and 4 Others

Ray Sahab Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evm Pushtaahar Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Sureshchandra Arun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag 2 Lko. and 2 Others