Allahabad High Court
SMT RANA BEGAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The District Basic Education Officer lacks jurisdiction; the pension claim must be considered by the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Bareilly.
Summary
Smt Rana Begam filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 08‑09‑2026 by respondent No. 6 that rejected her claim for pension. The petition argued that the order was illegal. The Court observed that the District Basic Education Officer, who passed the order, does not have jurisdiction to decide pension matters; such jurisdiction lies with the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Bareilly Division (respondent No. 4). Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the order but directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the proper authority within two months, after being heard. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without any substantive order against the original rejection.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Basic Education Officer has jurisdiction to reject the petitioner’s pension claim
- Whether the order dated 08‑09‑2026 can be quashed by the High Court
Subjects
- pension
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- administrative law
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16105 of 2026
Smt Rana Begam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava, Smt. Priyanka
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rama Nand Pandey
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Mr. Rama Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.09.2026
passed by respondent no. 6, whereby the petitioner's claim for pension has been
rejected.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A., Mr. Ramanand Pandey,
submits that the District Basic Education Officer has no power now to decide the
issue, as the jurisdiction lies with respondent no. 4 - Additional Director, Treasury and
Pension, Bareilly Division, Bareilly.
In view of the above, no interference is required.
However, in case the petitioner moves a fresh representation before respondent no. 4 -
Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Bareilly Division, Bareilly ventilating all
his grievances, an appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law, after
affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months
thereafter.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
October 1, 2026
Jitendra/-
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…