Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 160209 (ALL)

SABIR ALI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. BASIC EDUCATION LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/9668/2025 · 2025-08-27

Abdul Moin

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9668 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2, and Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having been appointed on compassionate ground prior to 01.04.2005 and sent for training, as his appointment order has only been issued subsequently as such the respondents are treating him under new pension scheme although he would be covered by the old pension scheme. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to open the petitioner's account for General Provident Fund and direct the respondents to deduct the GPF contribution from his salary and give the benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Nath Taigore vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.7762 (SS) of 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.3 which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned counsels appearing for respondents have no objection. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mayankar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Uday Veer Singh Sabir Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.3 then respondent no.3 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. August 27, 2025 A. Katiyar WRIA No. 9668 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench