Allahabad High Court
BRAHAM JEET SINGH AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed due to the petitioners' failure to cite any relevant statutory or service rule provisions supporting their claim for gratuity and pension.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of retired assistant teachers, filed a writ petition seeking gratuity, pension and related benefits after retiring at the age of 62. They relied on a prior judgment of this Court but failed to cite the specific provisions supporting their claim. The earlier writ petition filed by them had been dismissed for the same reason – lack of reference to the relevant statutory or service rule provisions. In the present petition, the Court observed that the same defect persisted, with no substantive grounds or statutory basis advanced. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, noting that the petitioners remain free to approach the concerned respondent authority for a proper consideration of their claims.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate legal basis for granting gratuity and pension to retired assistant teachers?
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained in the absence of specific statutory or service rule provisions supporting the relief sought?
Subjects
- gratuity
- pension
- service law
- writ petition
- procedural defect
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5510 of 2026
Braham Jeet Singh And 5 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Kumar, Nandini, Renu Choukl
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Ms. Nandini, learned counsel for the petitioners has extended apology
in regard to Ground No.G and submitted that petitioners have retired on
different dates as Assistant Teachers after working till the age of 62 years
and setup a claim for gratuity, pension etc. and have referred a judgment
passed by this Court, however, details thereof is not mentioned.
3. Earlier writ petition filed by petitioner was dismissed since relevant
provisions in support of prayer were not mentioned and still similar error
is repeated in present writ petition also.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, ignoring the above defects, this writ
petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioner will have liberty
to approach concern respondent who may look into the matter.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
April 20, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…