Allahabad High Court
/12627/2025 of KAYYOOM AHMAD Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY./PRIN. SECY. LOK NIRMAN VIBHAG LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 4 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12627 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:- "1) to issue a writ, order or direction in the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 12627 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:- "1) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding / directing the opposite parties to provide the pension alongwith all consequential benefits after including / adding the service rendered by the petitioner under work charge establishment as qualifying service for all service in terms of the judgement and order dated 02.09.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 (Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others)."
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 opposite party No. 2 i.e. Engineer in Chief (Development), Head of Department, Lucknow 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kayyoom Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.
4. The petition stands disposed of. December 4, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 12627 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench