Allahabad High Court
WAKIL SINGH KUSHWAHA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court declined to interfere with the prescribed restoration period and disposed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to approach the Deputy Director for redress.
Summary
Petitioners Wakil Singh Kushwaha and two others filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to reduce the restoration period for the commuted portion of their pension from fifteen years to about eleven years and to stop any further deduction of that amount after the shorter period. The State, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contended that the applicable government orders fix a fifteen‑year period and that any grievance should be addressed by the Deputy Director of Secondary Education. The Court, without addressing the merits, dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Deputy Director within three weeks, with a directive that the matter be decided expeditiously, preferably within four months. No observation was made on the substantive issues raised.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing a reduction of the statutory restoration period for commuted pension.
- Whether the Court can prohibit deduction of the commuted pension portion after a period shorter than that prescribed by government orders.
- Whether the petition is maintainable or should be decided by the administrative authority (Deputy Director Secondary Education).
Subjects
- pension
- commuted pension
- restoration period
- mandamus
- writ petition
- administrative law
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5522 of 2026
Wakil Singh Kushwaha And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma, Vishal Kumar
Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing State-respondents
and perused the record on Board.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
" A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the concerned respondents to reduce the restoration period of the
commuted pension after expiry of 10 years 11 months or at best 11 years
instead of 15 years as provided in the G.O. dated 23.7.1987, 6.12.1990
and 8.12.2008.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directed the
concerned respondent not to deduct the amount of commuted portion of
pension the from the monthly pension of the petitioners after the
expiration of 10 years 11 months or at best 11 years."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the commuted portion of
pension has already been recovered within 10 years and 11 months;
therefore, the petitioners are entitled to restoration of full pension.
4. Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel representing the State respondents has contended that the period for
recovery of the commuted pension has now been extended up to 15 years.
He has further contended that grievance of the petitioners can be more
appropriately redressed by the Deputy Director Secondary Education
(respondent no.5) and he has no objection if a direction is issued for
expeditious disposal of the fresh representation, to be moved by the present
WRIA No. 5522 of 2026
2
petitioners, within such stipulated period, as may be directed by this Court.
5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioners to move a
fresh representation before the Deputy Director Secondary Education
(respondent no.5) to ventilate his grievances, as raised in this petition,
within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this
order and a self attested copy of the instant writ petition, who, in turn, shall
consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of
the same, if there is no any other legal impediment.
6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
April 20, 2026
vkg
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…