Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12860 (ALL)

AWADESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/16451/2026 · 2026-10-06

Dinesh Pathak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 16451 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 respondent no.4 to pay the arrear 5th & 6th Pay Scale with interest to the petitioner within stipulated period of time as fix by this Hon'ble Court. II. Issue a writ order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority to consider the representation/application of the petitioner within stipulated period of time as fix by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents No. 1 and 2, and Ms Renu Patel, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 have contended that the grievance of the present petitioner raised in the instant writ petition can be more appropriately redressed by the Executive Officer (respondent No. 4), and they have 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. 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. 4), to ventilate his grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a period of three Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajeet Kumar Shukla, Sarvesh Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vivek Mishra Awadesh Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. October 7, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 16451 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad