Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 151680 (ALL)

RAGHURAJ SINGH PNO NO 892110405 AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/7712/2025 · 2025-07-17

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40783 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7712 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raghuraj Singh Pno No 892110405 And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Mishra,Ashutosh Verma,Shivendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner have prayed for following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the opposite party nos. 3 to take into consideration the service period spent by the petitioners while undergoing training before they were appointed as Constables for calculating 19 years of service for granting one additional increment/selection grade according to the Government Order dated 02.12.2000. (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the opposite party no. 3 to calculate the service period of the petitioners from the date of appointment and granted one additional increment." 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been appointed in the year 1989, and therefore, they are entitled to additional increment which has not been extended to them. It is further submitted that the controversy in hand is covered by judgment and order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others). In this respect, they have made several representations to the respondents-authorities, but till date, no action has been taken on the same. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to respondent No.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed off with liberty to each petitioners to file separate representation before the respondent No.3- Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Establishment) U.P. Police Headquarters, (PHQ), Lucknow along with the certified copy of this order raising all their grievance within a period of three weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same by reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench