HARI KISHORE SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. SOCIAL WELFARE U.P. GOVT. LKO AND 4 OTHERS
WRIA/5260/2024 · 2025-05-12
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 147274 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 147274 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27874 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5260 of 2024 Petitioner :- Hari Kishore Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare U.P. Govt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Katyayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard Sri Katyayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Rishabh Tripathi has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 5. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the Opposite Party No. 4 to produce the record in original and thereafter quash the impugned order dated 29.06.2024(Annexure No.1) whereby representation of the petitioner regarding payment of arrear of salary has been rejected. (ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No. 4 to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period of 01.09.1994 to 31.03.2021, in compliance of order/letter dated 03.02.2024 issued by the Divisional Assistant Education Director Basic VIth Div, Lucknow. (iii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No.4 to pay admissible interest the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned
order has been passed on the pretext that the controversy in question is subjudice before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 012084 of 2024, State of U.P. Vs. Hari Kishore Shukla, therefore, the fresh consideration in respect of the grievance of the petitioner may not be taken unless the aforesaid issue is finally adjudicated by the Apex Court. The specific recital to this effect has been given in paragraph 9 (2) of the counter affidavit of the State filed on 21.01.2024. Attention has been drawn towards the rejoinder affidavit filed on 11.02.2025 showing Annexure No. RA-I, which is a final
order of the Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP dated 22.01.2025. By means of the aforesaid order dated 22.01.2025, the Apex
Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the sole reason not to provide the admissible dues to the petitioner, i.e., pendency of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 012084 of 2024 has been decided by the Apex Court on 22.01.2025, rejecting the aforesaid SLP, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed. Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has stated that since the aforesaid SLP has been decided finally, therefore, the fresh order will have to pass in the case of the petitioner. Having considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage. Since, the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 (Annexure No. 1) was based on the reason that SLP is pending, which has been dismissed, therefore, the aforesaid impugned order lost its efficacy. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 (Annexure No. 1) is hereby set aside/quashed. The opposite party no. 4 is directed to take fresh decision considering the grievance of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law with expedition preferably within a period of 10 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order passed by this Court and the petitioner may prefer a fresh representation annexing therewith the certified copy of the
order of this Court taking all pleas and ground which are available to him, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7% on the delayed payment. It is also needless to say that if on the aforesaid arrears of the salary, the claim of the petitioner for interest is admissible, the same may also be considered within the aforesaid stipulated time. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench