Allahabad High Court
HANS RAJ SINGH JYANTversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court directed the respondent to decide the pending representation within twelve weeks and disposed of the petition without expressing a view on the merits.
Summary
The petitioner, father of the deceased Constable Aditya Jayant, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to release post‑death service benefits to him as the recorded nominee and to decide two pending applications dated 29‑06‑2026 and 14‑09‑2026. He alleged that the benefits were being withheld contrary to the applicable service rules and the nomination in the deceased’s service book. The State’s standing counsel contended that the petition served no useful purpose and that the pending applications should be decided within a timeframe set by the Court. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to opine on the merits of the benefit claim but ordered the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, subject to a hearing. Accordingly, the petition was finally disposed of with that direction.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the State to release post‑death service benefits to the nominee
- Whether the Court can direct the respondent to decide pending applications within a specified time‑frame
- Whether the petition should be dismissed or disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the benefit claim
Subjects
- post‑death service benefits
- mandamus
- writ petition
- terminal benefits
- service rules
- Allahabad High Court
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15971 of 2026
Hans Raj Singh Jyant
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abrar Alam, Rajesh Kumar, Sunil
Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to make
necessary correction in the writ petition during course of the day.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider, decide and release post-death
service benefits as are payable to late Aditya Jayant, Constable No.
1285/1631191212 under the applicable rules in his capacity as the
recorded nominee, in accordance with the applicable service rules and
the nomination recorded in his official service book, within a time-bound
period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, pay interest as permissible
under the applicable rules/law by a reasoned and speaking order;
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide applications of the petitioner
dated 29.06.2026 and on 14.09.2026 pending before him (ANNEXURE
NO. 9 to the writ petition)."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the
father of deceased employee and is seeking terminal benefits. In this regard,
the petitioner has moved a representation/application which is pending
WRIA No. 15971 of 2026
2
consideration.
5. 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. 3 to decide the representation/application of the petitioner
within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
6. 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. 3 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 30, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…