Supreme Court Asks Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to examine whether matters on non-release of pension can be given prioritised hearing and early disposal, after a retired peon’s writ petition filed in 2018 was left unlisted.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to examine whether pension non-release matters can be given priority, noting that a retired peon’s writ petition seeking pension had not been listed after a 2024 order, and has called for a report from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary on the delay [Jagdish Prasad Tripathi v. State of UP through its Principal Secretary and Others].
A Bench of Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli passed the order on a Special Leave Petition by the retired employee.
The case
The petitioner was appointed as a peon in 1984 and retired on July 31, 2016, after about 32 years of service. He sought release of his pension through repeated representations and complaints, and filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in 2018 for retiral benefits. In 2024, the High Court directed its office to trace and place on record the State’s counter affidavit. According to the petitioner, the matter was not listed after that. An application for early hearing made in October 2025 was disposed of in April 2026 without fixing a date, and he then moved the Supreme Court against the 2024 order.
Senior Advocate Anita Tripathi, for the petitioner, said that only gratuity had been paid, in 2025, nine years after retirement. The State told the Court that Rs 7,16,295 had been disbursed towards his General Provident Fund in 2025, and a later compliance affidavit stated that arrears of Rs 29,06,663 were paid in 2026 and that he would receive a monthly pension of Rs 11,200 plus Dearness Allowance.
What the Court said
The Bench held that the State, as a model employer, was bound to clear pension papers promptly on superannuation, and that this had not happened. It reiterated that:
“pension is neither a bounty or a charity but is a deferred payment for services already rendered.”
The directions
The Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh must furnish a report on why the petitioner’s pension papers were not cleared promptly, which officers were responsible at each stage, what action is proposed against them and how the petitioner will be compensated. The Court said:
“Let the report be given to us on or before 31.12.2026.”
The Chief Secretary must also issue orders or a Standard Operating Procedure, if not already issued, so that pension papers of legitimately entitled employees are not delayed even by a day.
The request to the High Court
The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court, to be placed before the Chief Justice, and requested the Chief Justice to examine whether matters on non-release of pension can be given prioritised hearing and early disposal. A copy was also directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary for urgent action. The matter will next be listed on January 4, 2027.
Why the order matters
The order goes beyond one petitioner. By treating the stalled writ petition as a pointer to a wider listing problem, the Supreme Court has asked the High Court’s administrative head to consider a priority track for pension matters, where delay falls on retirees who depend on the pension to live.
The request is not a binding direction on the High Court, and it is for the Chief Justice to decide how, and whether, to act on it.
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Tripathi v. State of UP through its Principal Secretary and Others [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 33998 of 2026]
Bench: Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Anita Tripathi, Senior Advocate, with Umesh Dubey, AOR, and other counsel, for the petitioner; Ruchira Goel, AOR, for the State