Disposed¶12

Ambkeshar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2025WRIA/8831/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiral dues; pension; superannuation retirement 31.03.2025; non-payment of retiral benefits; District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda; Department of Basic Education, U.P.; chargesheet dated 19.9.2008; writ petition disposed with consent; direction to decide retiral dues within six weeks; liberty to approach Court; no notice to respondent no. 5; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:48823; decided 20.8.2025 by Abdul Moin, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 (District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda) to take a final decision on payment of the petitioner's retiral dues, considering his alleged retirement on 31.03.2025, within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court if any grievance subsists. ¶12

Ambkeshar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 3, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda, should be directed to take a final decision on payment of the petitioner's retiral dues, including pension, the petitioner having allegedly retired on superannuation on 31.03.2025 without receiving them.

¶10

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda, to take a final decision on the payment of the petitioner's retiral dues, considering that the petitioner alleges to have retired on 31.03.2025.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The final decision on retiral dues is to be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶13

Key takeaways

If any grievance of the petitioner still subsists, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court again.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 8831 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 4; Abdul Moin, J.; order dated 20.8.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:48823): The petitioner, Ambkeshar, who had challenged a chargesheet dated 19.9.2008 and states that he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2025 without payment of retiral dues including pension, sought a direction that the competent authority, said to be the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda (respondent no. 3), take a final decision on payment of his retiral dues in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondents raised no objection. With the consent of counsel for the contesting parties, the writ petition was disposed of directing respondent no. 3 to take a final decision on the payment of retiral dues within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court if any grievance subsists. No notice was issued to respondent no. 5 in view of the nature of the order proposed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48823

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8831 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ambkeshar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 4 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Maya Ram Yadav,Anupriya Srivastava,Kaushlendra Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Uday Veer Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard Shri O. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Maya Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Dr Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4.

¶8

No notice be issued to respondent no. 5 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶9

With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.

¶10

Shri O. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate states that although he has challenged the chargesheet dated 19.9.2008 but considering the fact that he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2025 but no retiral dues has still been paid to him including pension as such he prays that the competent authority who is said to be the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari Gonda, i.e. respondent no. 3 be directed to take final decision on the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner in accordance with law and relevant rules within specified time.

¶11

To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the respondents have no objection.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 i.e. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda

¶13

to take a final decision on the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner considering that the petitioner alleges to have retired on 31.03.2025. Let a decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

¶14

It is also provided that in case any grievance of the petitioner still subsist it would be open for the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.8.2025 J. K. Dinkar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ambkeshar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambkeshar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. 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

Maniram Singh Vs U.P. Power Corporation Thru. Chairman Lko and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. High Edu. U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Rajeev Kumar Srivastav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and Another

Asheesh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 2 Others

Satish Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas and 3 Others

Raju Sharma @ Raju Vs U.P. Jal Nigam ( Urban) Rana Pratap Marg Lko. Thru. Managing Director and 3 Others