Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

CHATURI RAM GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court ordered the State to decide the petitioner's pending representation/application within twelve weeks, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pension claim.

Summary

Petitioner Chaturi Ram Gupta filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to sanction his retirement pension and other benefits, including service rendered in a work‑charge establishment, and to act on his representation dated 07‑07‑2026 in line with Supreme Court precedent. The petitioner argued that his application for pension was pending and required judicial intervention. The State contended that the petition was unnecessary and that the representation should simply be decided within a reasonable time. The Court, without adjudicating the merits of the pension claim, ordered the respondent to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, after giving a hearing. Consequently, the petition was disposed with a directive to the State to act within the stipulated period.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the State to sanction the petitioner's retirement pension and benefits, including work‑charge establishment service.
  • Whether the Court should direct the State to decide the petitioner's pending representation/application within a specified time frame.

Subjects

  • retirement pension
  • mandamus
  • service benefits
  • representation
  • high court
  • writ petition
  • expeditious disposal

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - A No. - 14289 of 2026

Chaturi Ram Gupta
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :     Himanshu Singh, J.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :     C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
                 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

     "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the Respondent No. 1 to issue necessary order for
     sanctioning retirement pension and other retirement benefits taking into
     account his entire service i.e. including service rendered in work-charge
     establishment within the period to be specified by the Hon'ble Court;

     (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the Respondent No. 1 to pass on Petitioner's appropriate
     order representation dated 07-07-2026 in the light of law laid down by
     the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and
     Others and the order dated 20-11-2024 passed in the case of Ram Nagina
     Lal, within the period to be specified by the Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is seeking
retirement pension and other retirement benefits. In this regard, the petitioner
has moved a representation/application which is pending consideration.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be
served in keeping this petition pending and it would be appropriate to direct
the respondent no. 1 to decide the representation/application of the petitioner
within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
                                                                                            WRIA No. 14289 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing
                                    any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of
                                    finally with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the
                                    aforementioned representation/application of the petitioner, in accordance
                                    with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the
                                    date of production of a certified copy of this order after giving opportunity
                                    of hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal
                                    impediment.



                                                                                     (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Ved Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.