Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 198072 (ALL)

NARENDRA KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN.SECY. SOCIAL WELFARE and 5 OTHERS

WRIA/18546/2016 · 2025-12-10

Shree Prakash Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 18546 of 2016 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 5. Notices to opposite party no. 6 stand dispensed with in view of order being passed in this petition. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to concerned authority, for payment of regular salary to petitioner along with arrears and interest thereupon. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner was initially appointed in year 1984, in the institution concerned, on the post of Assistant Teacher, whereafter, by means of order dated 29.06.1994, petitioner's appointment was approved by the District Social Welfare Officer and in pursuance thereof, payment of salary commenced and was actually paid till year 1997 whereafter it was stopped due to dispute in the Committee of Management. 4. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, one Smt. Madhuri Awasthi and others had also filed petition bearing WRIT - A No. - 6833 of 2015 and other connected petitions which have been disposed of vide order dated 05.01.2023. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner claims benefit of aforesaid order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kunwar Ravi Prakash, Dileep Kumar Mishra, Pashupati Nath Dwivedi, Prabhat Mishra, Sanjai Kumar Singh, Siddharth Tripathi, Som Kartik Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Navendu Srivastava, Shivam Sharma Narendra Kumar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Social Welfare And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) passed by this Court. 6. For the said grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation but seeks liberty to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned. At present, learned counsel for petitioner restricts prayer with regard to final decision on the same. 7. Considering the innocuous prayer, without entering into merits, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no.2 i.e. Director, Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, U.P., Lucknow who shall consider and decide the same in the light of Judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 passed in WRIT - A No. - 6833 of 2015 [Smt. Madhuri Awasthi and others v. State of U.P. & others] and other connected petitions, in case the same is applicable upon petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority along with fresh representation. 8. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of. December 10, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 18546 of 2016 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench