Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10326 (ALL)

RAEES AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/15951/2026 · 2026-09-29

Dinesh Pathak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15951 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents and perused the record on board. 2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release all pending arrear/salary of petitioner for the period of suspension i.e. since April 2014 to January 2019. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide the full salary since February 2019 to till date after revocation of suspension order and also pay the increments, 6th and 7th pay commission and other pecuniary benefits. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to decide the representation of petitioner dated 07.03.2026 within stipulated time in accordance with law. iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondent No. 1 and 2 have contended that the grievance of the present petitioner with regard to non-payment of arrears of salary and other service benefits can be more appropriately redressed by the Executive Officer (respondent No. 2), and he has no objection, in case, a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be moved by the petitioner within such stipulated period as may be directed by this Court. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta Raees Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Executive Officer (respondent No. 2), to ventilate his grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the present writ petition, and, in turn, he shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of such representation. 5. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of. September 30, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 15951 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad