Disposed¶17

Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026WRIA/3693/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization benefit from date of Regularization Rules (2003) versus actual regularization order (11.10.2006); Old Pension Scheme entitlement; parity with similarly situated employees; pension and gratuity with 6% simple interest per quoted precedent; Writ-A No. 16556 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar Mishra) and Special Appeal No. 56 of 2022 (Kamrul Haq) cited by petitioner's senior counsel Siddharth Khare; time granted to State (ACSC Dilip Kumar Kesarwani) to obtain instructions; matter listed fresh on 7.4.2026; Allahabad High Court, Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; interlocutory order, no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory direction only: ten days' time granted to the respondent-State's counsel to obtain instructions, and the case listed on 7.4.2026 as fresh. Nothing decided on merits. ¶17

Subhash Chandra Tripathi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3693 of 2026

¶3

Subhash Chandra Tripathi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner services were regularized on 11.10.2006 although Regularization Rules came into effect from the year 2003. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that similarly other employee Sri Mayank Kumar Singh was regularized by order dated 11.10.2006 who had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ-A No. 16556 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of by order dated 1.12.2025. Paragraph No. 24 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

" 24. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is issued, directing the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas, Government of U.P., Lucknow, the Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow and the Secretary, Agra Development Authority, Agra, to ensure amongst themselves payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner, reckoning his entitling service w.e.f. 10.04.2003 and pay the pension with effect from the month following his retirement, together with arrears, which will carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The arrears shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The current pension shall be paid regularly month-by-month forthwith. Likewise, due gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner, also within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. "

¶13

Similarly Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 56 of

¶14

WRIA No. 3693 of 2026

¶15

¶16

2022 (Sri Kamrul Haq and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) by judgment dated 3.4.2024 has also maintained the benefit of regularization from the date of regularization Rules. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that similar benefit is liable to be extended to the petitioner and petitioner is entitled to Old Pension Scheme from the date of regularization of the petitioner from the year 2003.

¶17

Sri Dilip Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent-State prays for and is granted ten days' time to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶18

List this case on 7.4.2026 as fresh.

¶19

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶20

March 18, 2026

¶21

VMA

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Singh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Udai Narain Vs D.D.C. and Other

Smt. Nagina Kuer Vs D.D.C. and Aother

State of Up and Another vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Trivedi and 96 Others

Rajendra Singh vs State of Up and Another

Phuldei vs State of U.P. and 4 Others