Allahabad High Court
WRIT PETITION 7402 of 2025 on 31 July 2009
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 12062 of 2025
Nakchhed And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 4 Others Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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 Mr. Subodh Kumar Gupta learned state counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 31st July 2009 and 5th November 2009 whereby representation dated 16th March 2009 submitted by father of petitioner pertaining to service benefit was rejected.
3. Earlier as well the petitioner had filed writ A No. 7402 of 2025 seeking a direction to authorities concerned for providing post-retiral benefits along with arrears with regard to services rendered by their father late Ram Pal since 2nd February 2001. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10th July 2025 primarily on the ground that the orders impugned were not challenged. Liberty however was not granted to petitioner for filing a fresh petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the relief so sought would constitute a recurring cause of action to petitioner due to which now the error of the earlier writ petition has been cured by challenging the orders whereby representation was rejected.
5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of written instructions dated 9th October 2025, copy of which is taken on record. He submits that petitioner's father passed away in the year 2020 without challenging the rejection order dated 31st July 2009. The present petition has also been filed after five years thereafter without indicating any cogent reasons for filing this petition so belatedly. It is also submitted that the rejection order dated 31st July 2009 was passed on the merits of the case and was not challenged by petitioner's father and therefore petitioner would not have any independent right to challenge the same.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's father had earlier filed writ petition No. 737 (S/S) of 2009 seeking service benefits from the date of initial appointment. The said petition was disposed of under direction for deciding his representation, which was rejected by means of order dated 31st July 2009. The said order was never challenged by petitioner's father till the year 2020 when he said to have passed away. The petitioner has also challenged the said order after five years since demise of their father.
7. In the considered opinion of this court, the claim of petitioner is a stale one and even otherwise the petitioner would not have any independent right to challenge the same once their father who was the original beneficiary failed to challenge the order dated 31st July, 2009 during his lifetime.
8. In view of aforesaid this court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence.The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.
October 13, 2025prabhat
(Manish Mathur,J.)