Disposed¶19

Haji Ikrar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2026WRIA/2762/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delayed payment of gratuity; interest on retiral and pensionary dues; family pension; interest payable only from date of filing of application; Usha Rani v. State of U.P.; 8% interest from date of application till disbursement; 18% interest claimed; entitlement date 15.11.2013; disbursement 29.03.2023; direction to produce 2013 application; Writ-A; Allahabad High Court; Haji Ikrar v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 directed to trace out and produce the petitioner's year-2013 application seeking family pension and consequential retiral benefits within three weeks; matter listed fresh on 25.03.2026. The claim for 18% interest remains open and undecided. ¶19

Haji Ikrar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2762 of 2026

Haji Ikrar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Suresh Kumar Maurya

¶9

Court No. - 52

¶10

HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, and Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the demise of his wife, the petitioner moved an application in the year 2013 seeking retiral and pensionary benefits. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority sanctioned family pension and other admissible dues. However, gratuity was released only on 29.03.2023. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity from the date of entitlement, i.e., 15.11.2013, till the date of actual disbursement, i.e., 29.03.2023.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has opposed the claim. It is submitted that gratuity was released pursuant to the order dated 22.07.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 9550 of 2022. The said order relied upon Usha Rani v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019, decided on 07.11.2019), wherein this Court held that interest at the rate of 8% per annum is payable only from the date of filing of the application till actual disbursement. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner filed the application on 08.08.2022, interest, if any, would be payable only from that date.

¶14

It is not in dispute that, in view of the law laid down in Usha Rani

¶15

WRIA No. 2762 of 2026

¶16

¶17

(supra), the petitioner is entitled to interest only from the date of filing of the relevant application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application seeking family pension along with other retiral benefits, including gratuity, had already been filed in the year 2013. However, the petitioner does not possess a copy of the said application and is unable to trace the same. The controversy, therefore, centers on the actual date of filing of the application for gratuity, namely, whether it was in 2013 or in 2022.

¶18

In order to adjudicate the controversy effectively, it would be necessary to examine the application allegedly filed in the year 2013 on the basis of which family pension had been sanctioned.

¶19

Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is directed to trace out and produce the application submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013 seeking family pension and consequential retiral benefits, within a period of three weeks.

¶20

List this matter as fresh on 25.03.2026.

¶21

(Garima Prashad,J.)

¶22

February 24, 2026

¶23

Kuldeep

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haji Ikrar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Ikrar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Rajendra Kumar Gupta and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind Goyal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Manju Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Omwati vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sushil Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others