Allahabad High Court
SURYAMANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court ordered the respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within twelve weeks, without adjudicating the merits of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a decision on his representation dated 24‑08‑2026 for payment of pension and other post‑retiral dues. The respondent's standing counsel argued that the petition was redundant since the representation had already been made and should be dealt with by the appropriate authority. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, providing a hearing to all concerned parties. The Court stipulated that the decision be rendered expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order. It clarified that it had not examined the merits of the petition and that the order was issued strictly in accordance with law, and consequently the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking pension dues is maintainable when the petitioner has already filed a representation before the concerned authority.
- Whether the High Court can direct the respondent authority to consider the representation and decide it within a specified time frame without examining the merits.
Subjects
- pension
- post‑retiral dues
- writ petition
- representation
- administrative law
- High Court
- direction to authority
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15547 of 2026
Suryamani
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Kumar Shukla, Avanish Kumar, Lok
Nath Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for decision on his
representation dated 24.08.2026 seeking payment of pension and other post retiral
dues.
2. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as petitioner has already represented,
no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and it would be
appropriate that respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the grievance of the
petitioner in accordance with law.
3. In view of these facts, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the
representation dated 24.08.2026 of the petitioner in accordance with law, after
providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.
4. It is made clear that this court has not examined the matter on merits and the order
shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
September 24, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…