HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12154 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition for a direction upon the respondent authorities not to deduct the amount as commuted portion from the monthly pension of the petitioners from the month of July, 2025 onward and to restore full pension of the petitioners from the month of July, 2025 and onward as the maximum of 144 months, i.e., 12 years is contemplated in the year July, 2025 from their respective dates of retirement in the year June, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, in view of the Fifth Central Pay Commission and Second National Judicial Pay Commission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a recent judgement of Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 28.05.2025, whereby a batch of petitions, leading petition being Writ-A No. 5617 of 2024 (Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava And Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko & 3 Others) has been decided. By the said order the Court has disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions: "31. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue and without interfering the impugned circular dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure no. 3), I hereby dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi i.e. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Rai, Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Virpal Singh And 33 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) opposite party no. 1 and to Director, Finance (Estt.) Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, opposite party no. 2 within a period of one month taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him enclosing therewith copies of the relevant documents which are necessary for disposal of the representation of the petitioner and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner, an expert committee may be formed in a same manner it has been formed by the State of U.P. and the issue regarding the restoration period needs to be examined de novo by said committee strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of such representation along with certified copy of the order of this Court and decision thereof shall be intimated to the persons who have preferred such representation with expedition. 32. It is also directed that even if no committee is constituted by the competent authority of Railway Department, the representation of the petitioner or of the office bearers of the association of retired employees, as the case may be, shall be decided in terms of order of this Court. 33. Till the appropriate decision is taken on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner or his association, if any, no recovery shall be executed from the petitioner. 34. It is needless to say that if the petitioner feels aggrieved from the order being passed by the aforesaid committee on his representation, he may approach the competent court of law for redressal of his grievances, if any. 35. Therefore, this writ petition is being disposed of finally in view of the aforesaid terms." 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the aforesaid fact, however, relying upon various judgements and orders of this Court i.e. judgement dated 05.05.2025 in the case of Kaushal Kishore Misra & 3 Others v. S.B.I. Thru. its Chairman Corporate Centre Maharashtra and 2 others, Writ-A No. 4753 of 2025; judgement dated WRIA No. 12154 of 2025 2 01.04.2025 in the case of Sudhir Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and others, Writ-A No. 12596 of 2024; judgement dated 06.03.2025 in the case of Radheyshyam Shukla & 14 Others v. State of U.P. & 3 Others, Writ- A No. 19031 of 2024; judgement dated 11.02.2025 in the case of Dan Bahadur Yadav v. Managing Director and CEO Bank of Baroda Corporate Centre, Mumbai & 2 Others, Writ-A No. 12905 of 2024, and judgement and order dated 15.01.2025 in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 48 Others v. Union of India and Another, Writ-A No. 17819 of 2024, contends that the petitioners herein are not entitled for the relief as being claimed for. 4. In view of the above, this Court finds that the issue under dispute has been settled in the case of Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava And Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Klow 3 Others, Writ-A No. 5617 of 2024, thus, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgement and order dated 28.05.2025 passed in Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava (supra). 5. No order as to costs. September 9, 2025 DS WRIA No. 12154 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad