Allahabad High Court
/14040/2025 of RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE LKO. AND 4 OTHERS on 4 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14040 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking following prayers:- " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 14040 of 2025
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed seeking following prayers:- " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to provide the revised pension as well as other pensionary benefits counting the services of the petitioner as a seasonal collection peon from the date of his initial engagement i.e. 13.7.1988 till date of regularization i.e. 19.1.2005 in term of the judgment and order dated 8.10.2021 passed in Case of "Kaushal Kishor Chaubey & others Versus State of U.P. & others" Writ-A No. 5817 of 2020 and also provide all the consequential benefit like as ACP, increment, arrear etc.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to give all the consequential benefits after adding the services of petitioner as a seasonal collection peon and pay the arrears."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 as well as judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jai Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 731 of 2024].
4. Since petitioner's grievances would require consideration of factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioner to make a fresh representation before Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hari Shanker Tewari, Ajay Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Raghvendra Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
opposite party No. 3 i.e. Joint Director, Pension, Ayodhya or any other competent authority In case such a representation is filed, the same is required to be decided in the light of judgments rendered in the cases of Prem Singh (supra) and Jai Ram Sharma (supra) in case the same are applicable, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.
5. The petition stands disposed of. December 4, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 14040 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench