Allahabad High Court
SMT KANYA KUMARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent, who must decide it within two months by a reasoned order.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt Kanya Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus orders directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 27 July 2026, and to calculate and pay pension arrears, death-cum-gratuity, and group insurance scheme amounts with 15% interest, based on the revised 6th Pay Commission structure. The petitioner alleged that the respondent (District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur) had not acted on her representation. The respondents argued that the petition served no useful purpose and suggested filing a fresh representation. The High Court, without examining the merits, disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks and directing the respondent to decide it within two months by a reasoned order. No mandamus was issued and the reliefs sought were not granted.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a government officer fails to decide a representation filed by a pensioner?
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondent to calculate and pay pension arrears, gratuity, and group insurance amounts with interest.
- Whether the court should entertain the petition without a fresh representation being filed.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- pension arrears
- gratuity
- group insurance scheme
- 6th Pay Commission
- interest
- administrative law
- representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14224 of 2026
Smt Kanya Kumari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Drivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Girijesh Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Chandra Mani Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prashant
Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following
reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider
and decide the petitioner's representation dated 27.07.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order,
within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to calculate
and pay to petitioners the entire pension arrears for the period from year 2006 to 31.12.2015 after
considering the revised 6th pay commission pay structure after adjusting the amount already paid under
the old pay structure with interest at the rate 15% per annum upon the aforesaid differential pension
arrears from the date on which the aforesaid pension arrears became due and payable till the date of
actual payment.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the
remaining balance death-cum-gratuity amount to the petitioner after considering the revised 6th pay
commission pay structure with interest at the rate 15% per annum upon the aforesaid balance death-cum-
gratuity amount from the date on which the gratuity became due and payable till the date of actual
payment.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine,
WRIA No. 14224 of 2026
2
calculate and release the entire amount payable to petitioner under the group insurance scheme (GIS)
with interest at the rate 15% per annum on the entire group insurance scheme (GIS) amount from the date
on which the same became due and payable till the date of actual payment."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the for redressal of her
grievances, the petitioner has made representation before the respondent
no.2, but no decision has been taken till date. Therefore, a direction may
be issued to the respondent no.2 to take an appropriate decision in
accordance with law within a time bound period.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that no useful
purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and in case
a fresh representation is given before the respondent no.2, the same may
be decided in accordance with law.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going
into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the respondent no.2- District Basic Education
Officer, Shahjahanpur, raising all her grievances within a period of three
weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the
petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in
accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a
period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order if there is no other legal impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 9, 2026
Junaid
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…