Disposed¶20

Sushil Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2026WRIA/1575/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pension arrears March 2022; 7th Pay Commission arrears (50%) and revised pension arrears; 12% interest claimed; writ of mandamus; disposed of without entering merits; liberty to file fresh representation; Apar Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat Raebareli; decision within eight weeks; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 1575 of 2026; Shree Prakash Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 3/Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli within 15 days, with a direction to that authority to consider and decide the representation within a further eight weeks in accordance with law; the monetary/mandamus reliefs sought were not adjudicated. ¶20

Sushil Chandra Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to release of the outstanding pension amounts for March 2022 (described as 50% arrears of the 7th Pay Commission and revised pension arrears) together with 12% interest, as sought by way of mandamus.

¶13

Court's answer

The petitioners were given liberty to move a fresh representation, raising all their claims and grounds, before the opposite party no. 3/Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli within 15 days.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merits of the case.

¶16

Key takeaways

If such representation is moved within the aforesaid period, the opposite party no. 3 was directed to consider and decide it within a further period of eight weeks, in accordance with law.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - A No. 1575 of 2026, decided February 13, 2026 by Shree Prakash Singh, J. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus commanding release of outstanding pension amounts for March 2022 - Rs. 2,63,309/- for petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 2,83,788/- for petitioner no. 2, described as 50% arrears of the 7th Pay Commission and revised pension arrears - along with 12% interest. After argument, counsel for the petitioners sought liberty to make a fresh representation. Without entering into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the writ petition, giving the petitioners liberty to move a fresh representation raising all their claims and grounds before the opposite party no. 3/Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli within 15 days, and directing that if such representation is so moved, the opposite party no. 3 shall consider and decide it within a further period of eight weeks in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1575 of 2026

¶3

Sushil Chandra Mishra And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Udai Bhan Pandey, Shivendra Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vijay Pratap Singh

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, leaned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 and perused the record.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs :-

¶13

I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties release the outstanding amount petitioner no. 1 Rs. 1,82,744/-+80565-2,63,309/- Pension month of March 2022 and petitioner no. 2 amounting Rs 2,62,920/-+ 20868=2,83,788/- Pension of March 2022 50% as airier of the 7th pay Commission and revised pension airier alongwith 12% interest."

¶14

After arguing at some 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 opposite party no. 3/Apar Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat Raebareli and the opposite party no. 3 may be directed to consider and decide the same within the stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this court.

¶15

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

¶16

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case,the

¶17

WRIA No. 1575 of 2026

¶18

¶19

petitioners are given liberty to move a fresh representation, while raising all their claims and grounds before the opposite party no. 3/ Apar Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat Raebareli within the period of 15 days form today and if such representation is moved within aforesaid period, the opposite party no. 3 is directed to consider and decide the same within further period of eight weeks, in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶21

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶22

February 13, 2026 AKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushil Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Chandra Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 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

Satya Narayan Mishra vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Veer Bahadur @ Veer Bahadur Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Samim Jafri vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Lko. Thru. Regional Assistant Commissioner and Another

Vikas Dixit vs State Bank of India Nariman Point Mumbai Thru. Chairman

S.K. Kakkar vs Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board Lko. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Dwivedi and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others