Allahabad High Court
CHAVIRAJI DEVI AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without merits, directing the petitioners to file fresh representations before the Director of Pension for adjudication.
Summary
The petitioners, retired employees, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to decide their pending application and grant pensionary benefits and arrears. They relied on earlier High Court orders in Gorakh Nath Pandey (2016) and Maqsood Ali (2023) to support their claim. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Director of Pension and did not oppose a direction for the petitioners to file a fresh representation. The Court held that keeping the matter pending would serve no useful purpose and disposed of the petition without addressing its merits, directing the petitioners to approach the Director of Pension within three weeks and for the Director to decide within three months. The petition was thus dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to seek relief through the appropriate administrative channel.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should issue a mandamus directing the State to decide the petitioners' application for pension benefits
- Whether the petitioners' grievance is maintainable before the Court or should be redressed by the Director of Pension
Subjects
- pension
- retirement benefits
- mandamus
- director pension
- administrative law
- high court
- fresh representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13476 of 2026
Chaviraji Devi And 7 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madan Lal Srivastava, Harshit Kumar
Srivastava, Himanshu Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
to the respondents to decide the application filed by the Petitioners;
(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to give pensionary benefits and arrears to the petitioners;
(c) To issue any other writ order or direction as deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case;"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after retirement, the
petitioners have not been extended the retiral benefits, despite the several
representations having been moved on their behalf. He further submits that
the claim of the present petitioners for retiral benefits may be considered and
decided in terms of the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-
A No. 61107 of 2013 (Gorakh Nath Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and
Others), and the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.
17589 of 2011 (Maqsood Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others)
collectively filed as Annexure No. 10 to the instant writ petition.
4. Sri Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has contended that the grievance of the present
petitioner, as raised in the instant writ petition, can be more appropriately
redressed by the Director, Pension (respondent No. 3) and that he has no
objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the fresh
representation, to be moved by the present petitioner, within such stipulated
period, as may be directed by this Court.
WRIA No. 13476 of 2026
2
5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioners to move their
fresh representations before the Director, Pension (respondent No. 3) to
ventilate their grievances, as raised in this petition, within a period of three
weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self
attested copy of the instant writ petition, who, in turn, shall consider and
decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a
period of three months from the date of production of the same, if there is
no other legal impediment.
6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition
stands disposed of.
September 8, 2026
vkg
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…