HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12635 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of regular monthly pension along with arrears with effect from 01.03.2025, gratuity and amount of commutation of pension to petitioner. Interest on the said amount has also been sought. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner superannuated from service on 28.02.2025 and except for the said service benefits, other benefits such as General Provident Fund, encashment of leave, G.I.S. etc. have already been paid to petitioner. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 30.10.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which, it is indicated that petitioner was initially engaged in service on 12.04.1988 on ad hoc/temporary basis and her services were subsequently confirmed on 31.08.1995. Written instructions indicate that when documents pertaining to pensionary benefits of petitioner were submitted, objections were raised that in view of fact that petitioner had been engaged initially on ad hoc basis, his services were first required to be regularized and then only confirmation could have been effected and therefore objections have been made with regard to service period of 7 years, 4 months and 27 days. 5. Instructions also indicate that objections have been replied but final decision has not yet been taken. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shireesh Kumar, Utkarsh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Sunita Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Co- Operative Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) for the parties and perusal of material on record particularly written instructions dated 30.10.2025, it is thus admitted that petitioner was initially engaged in service on ad hoc/temporary basis on 12.04.1988 and was confirmed on 31.08.1995. Admittedly, service and pensionary benefits except for those prayed for in writ petition have already been paid to petitioner in March, 2025 and April, 2025. 7. It is thus evident that opposite parties do not deny the fact that petitioner was in fact confirmed in service on 31.08.1995. The aspect as to whether petitioner was confirmed directly without regularization or not is merely an aspect of semantics. Once opposite parties themselves admit that petitioner was confirmed in service in year 1995 and it is on that basis the other service benefits have already been paid to petitioner, it does not stand to reason as to why gratuity and pension should not be paid to her particularly in view of admitted confirmed service of petitioner since year 1995. 8. In view thereof a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of outstanding service and retiral benefits to petitioner expeditiously within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned. In case service benefits are not paid within the aforesaid time period, petitioner shall be entitled to interest thereupon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it is due after two months till date of actual payment. 9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 31, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 12635 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench