HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8170 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that an admitted amount of Rs.11,29,618/- is payable. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner. 3. Further, counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties agree that the issue involved in the present matter is similar to a bunch of petitions decided by this Court on 22.11.2024 in leading writ petition being Writ-C no.5353 of 2024 [Shraddha Printers Sons Thru Its Prop. Smt. Vimla Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] which reads as under:- "Heard. All the writ petitions involve similar facts and issues, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment and they relate to the same department i.e. the Directorate of Basic Education. All the petitioners claim to have done some work or provided some service in pursuance to an agreement or work order issued by the officials of the Directorate of Basic Education but the payments have not been made, and it is said that the payments are admitted by the Director, Basic Education, as is evident from Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dharmendra Gupta, Sampurna Nand Shukla Vinod Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the order dated 08.01.2024 wherein he has stated that on account of absence of budget, he is unable to disburse the amount due to the petitioners, and has accordingly, referred to certain letters by which he has sought funds from the State Government for making the payments. The liability to pay certain dues is admitted by the Basic Education Department but the budget is not available which has to be provided by the State Government i.e. opposite party no. 1. Requisition has been sent by the Director, Basic Education, Lucknow to the State Government vide letters dated 30.11.2023 and 22.12.2023. We are now towards the end of 2024. This is not at all a happy state of affairs. Why should the State Government sit over the matter for so long? Let the State Government act upon the letter of the Director, Basic Education dated 08.01.2024 positively within two months with regard to all the petitioners of this Bunch of petitions. Shri Raj Bakash Singh, learned Additional C.S.C. shall communicate this order to the opposite party no. 1 for compliance. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. " 4. In view of this agreement, we dispose of this petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 5. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel says that in this case, the decision would be taken by opposite party no.2. 6. We, therefore, make it clear that opposite party nos.1 or 2 whosoever is competent and before whom the matter may be pending to take decision in the matter keeping in mind the aforesaid judgement. October 8, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 8170 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench