Disposed¶11

Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026WRIA/4781/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ - A No. - 4781 of 2026; Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. and 2 Others; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Prakash Padia, J.; pension; amended pension; superannuation 31.12.2023; Cook; PAC; 6th Battalion PAC Meerut; Finance Controller Police Headquarter Lucknow; non-response to letters dated 25.08.2024 and 07.10.2024; direction to Standing Counsel to seek instructions; personal presence of respondent no.2; listed fresh on 13.04.2026; interim order.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: learned Standing Counsel granted one week to seek instructions; failing which respondent no.2 to remain present in person before the Court on the next date; matter to be put up as fresh on 13.04.2026. ¶11

Ramesh Chand vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 4781 of 2026

Ramesh Chand

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Archana Singh, Bramh Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶9

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while working on the post of Cook in PAC superannuated on 31.12.2023 and for the purpose of amended pension to the petitioner a letter dated 25.08.2024 was written by the respondent no.3-Commandant, 6th Battalion, PAC, Meerut to the respondent no.2-Finance Controller, Police Headquarter, U.P., Lucknow. Thereafter a reminder was also sent on 01.07.2024 but till date no decision was taken hence present writ petition.

¶10

It is unfortunate that inspite of the fact that petitioner has already superannuated on 31.12.2023 the correct pension has not been paid to him for which he is legally entitled. It is more unfortunate that no response has been given by the respondent no.2 pursuant to the letter dated 25.08.2024 and 07.10.2024 written by the respondent no.3.

¶11

In this view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State is granted a weeks' time to seek instructions in the matter failing which respondent no.2 shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed in the matter.

¶12

Put up as fresh on 13.04.2026.

¶13

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶14

April 6, 2026 Pramod Tripathi

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachchu Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajaram Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Laxmi Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others