Disposed¶15

Dr. Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2026WRIA/5079/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

pension; Officiating Principal; Ad hoc Principal; pensionary benefits; State of U.P.; WRIT - A; notice issued; connected writ petitions; Satya Prakash Sharma; Sri Padam Singh; Allahabad High Court; interim order; exchange of affidavits; listing 14.05.2026; Dinesh Pathak, J.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to respondent no.5 returnable on 14.05.2026; parties permitted to exchange affidavits in the meantime; matter directed to be connected with Writ-A No.4921 of 2026 (Sri Padam Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) and listed on 14.05.2026. No merits adjudicated. ¶15

Dr. Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5079 of 2026

Dr. Raj Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Raghvendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 33

¶10

HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

¶11

It is submitted that the claim of the present petitioner for payment of pension on the post of Officiating Principal has illegally been rejected on the ground that, being an Ad hoc/Officiating Principal, he is not entitled for payment of pension to the post of Principal.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the Ad hoc/Officiating Principal is entitled for payment of pension on the post of Principal. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.2733 of 2023 (Satya Prakash Sharma vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others).

¶13