Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 121937 (ALL)

MANOJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COOPERATIVE DEPTT. GOVT. LKO. AND OTHERS

WRIA/1524/2025 · 2025-02-05

Abdul Moin

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7491 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1524 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Govt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirankar Singh,Sheo Narain Rao Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Shri Harshit Singh holding brief of Shri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State No.1 and 2 and Ms Maria Fatima holding brief of Shri Akbar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for and is permitted to correct the name of petitioner No.2 as 'Rajeev Kumar Verma' from 'Rajeev Kumar' mentioned in the petition. 3. There is consensus at Bar that the the matter in issue is squarely covered by the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Writ A No.7820 of 2024 In re Kamal Krishna Mishra vs State of U.P. & 3 Ors, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition. It is further contended that a special appeal filed against the said judgment vide Special Appeal No.09 of 2025 In Re U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd Lucknow & 2 Ors vs Kamal Krishna Mishra & Anr has been dismissed in limine vide judgment and order dated 10.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the petition. Thus, the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Krishna Mishra (supra) has attained finality. 4. Considering the aforesaid consensus, the writ petition is allowed. It is provided that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of the judgment in the case of Kamal Krishna Mishra (supra). 5. At this stage, learned counsels for the parties point out that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 have not been paid salary for the months of August, September, November, December, 2024 & January, 2025. 6. In view thereof, the respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioners for the aforesaid months without any deduction and continue to pay salary month to month in accordance with law under relevant rules, provided there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 5.2.2025/prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench