Disposed

Ram Bahadur Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2026WRIA/15034/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought a direction for regular pension and other retirement benefits, as well as consideration of a pending representation. The Court declined to decide the merits and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to submit a fresh representation to the Director, who was directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to respondent No. 2 within three weeks, and the Director was directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months of production.

Ram Bahadur Singh and 2 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 15034 of 2026

¶3

Ram Bahadur Singh And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ajai Krishna Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 32

¶10

HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

¶11

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for and permitted to correct the details of petitioner no.3, during course of the day.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

¶14

"I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to provide regular pension to the petitioners in as much as retiral benefits with interest and all consequential benefits which is due in accordance with law.

¶15

II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 27.07.2026 pending before the Respondent No.2 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law."

¶16

Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for respondents nos.2 to 5 has contended that the grievance of the present petitioner, as raised in the instant writ petition, can be more appropriately redressed by the Director, respondent no.2 and that he has no objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the fresh representation, to be moved by the present petitioner, within such stipulated period, as may be directed by this Court.

¶17

In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioners to move a

¶18

WRIA No. 15034 of 2026

¶19

¶20

fresh representation before the Director, respondent no.2 ventilating their grievances, as raised in this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ petition, who, in turn, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of the same, if there is no other legal impediment..

¶21

With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

September 18, 2026 vkg

¶23

(Dinesh Pathak,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Bahadur Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bahadur Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases