Disposed¶21

Ram Gopal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2026WRIA/1366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Death cum-retirement gratuity; admissible interest on gratuity; mandamus; liberty to file fresh representation; District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya; direction to decide within eight weeks; disposed of without entering into merits; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 1366 of 2026; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; decided February 9, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation before respondent no. 3 within 15 days, with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya to consider and decide it within eight weeks in accordance with law. ¶21

Ram Gopal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1366 of 2026

¶3

Ram Gopal And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Keshari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Yadav

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Keshari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 and perused the record.

¶12

Instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶13

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay the amount of death cum-retirement gratuity of the petitioner's father to the petitioners along with admissible interest forthwith.

¶14

II. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, may be passed."

¶15

After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 and he may be directed to consider & decide the same, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶17

Be that as it may, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioners are permitted to move a fresh representation within period of 15 days, and if such representation is moved within aforesaid period, the respondent no. 3/District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya, is hereby directed to consider and decide the same, within further period of eight weeks, in accordance

¶18

WRIA No. 1366 of 2026

¶19

¶20

with law, from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of.

¶22

February 9, 2026

¶23

Mayank

¶24

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Gopal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gopal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baliram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Education Research Lko. and 2 Others

Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Becha Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Shyam Kumar Pal vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Science and Technology India and 7 Others

Dileep Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Yunus Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Transport U.P. Lko and 4 Others