Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3628 (ALL)

STATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS v. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND 5 OTHERS

WRIA/6317/2026 · 2026-05-06

Satya Veer Singh, Saurabh Dwivedi Registrar J Cpc

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6317 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1. Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of petitioners (State functionaries). He submits, under challenge is judgment dated 1st December, 2025 made by the State Public Service Tribunal. By it claim petition of the deceased employee, whose legal representatives are respondent nos. 2 to 6, was allowed. The claim was for promotion. He submits, the deceased employee was provided with option but he did not exercise it. Hence, he was not considered for the promotion. Without prejudice he submits, in any event the claim for promotion was made by the deceased employee on delay. In other words, he had belatedly approached the tribunal. 2. On query Dr. Tiwari refers to paragraph 8 in impugned judgment and submits, though it is a fact that the deceased employee refused to exercise the option but, there is no record of it. He seeks interference. 3. Mr. Akhilanand Mishra, learned advocate appears and files his power executed by respondent nos. 2 to 6. He submits, the tribunal upon hearing petitioners and his clients had passed impugned order, giving reasons. There is no ground for interference in judicial review. 4. So far as belated approach is concerned, we see from documents disclosed in the writ petition that there was earlier approach to the tribunal. The judgment was set aside by the writ Court and impugned judgment has come on restoration of the matter. Moving on to the other contention regarding omission to exercise option, we cannot fault the tribunal for proceeding as it did, to disbelieve petitioners on absence of record. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Kumar Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilanand Mishra State Of Up And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Public Service Tribunal And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. The writ petition is found to be without merit. It is dismissed. May 7, 2026 sailesh WRIA No. 6317 of 2026 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad