Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 167310 (ALL)

SHIVDAYAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/11442/2025 · 2025-09-24

Manjive Shukla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11442 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1.Heard Ms. Rupa Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The captioned writ petition has been filed, inter alia praying therein for the following reliefs:- (i)A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties no. 02 decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.07.2025 annexed as Annexure No.02 to this petition in the light of judgement in case Mohd Husain Supra. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and direction the opp. parties to pay one notional increment by treating his last working day 01.07.2014 instead of 30.06.2014 as per guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Court in the case Writ-A No.14966 of 2010 ( Mohd. Husain vs. State of U.P. and Ors). 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of this writ petition had already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court though catena of judgements holding that a person who retires on 30th June of a year, is entitled for one increment which became due him on the 1st July of that year. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner had already submitted a representation on 09.07.2025 before Respondent No.2 i.e. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lucknow, U.P., therefore, a direction may be issued by this Court for considering and deciding the said representation, by passing a speaking and reasoned order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court on the subject. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State does not have any objection if the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rupa Singh, Alok Kirti Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shivdayal Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) direction is issued by this Court to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court on the subject matter in issue. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 7. This writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 i.e. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lucknow, U.P to consider and decide the representation dated 09.07.2025, contained in annexure no.2 to the writ petition, by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. September 24, 2025 Shahnaz WRIA No. 11442 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench