Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3765 (ALL)

DR. ASEEM KUMAR OJHA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/6663/2026 · 2026-05-04

Prakash Padia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6663 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :- "i. Issue a suitable writ order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salaries/honorarium of the petitioner, due from 01.10.2016 to till now. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to permit him to make signature on attendance register, adjust him and to pay the regular salaries like other Surplus Doctors." 2. It reveals from perusal of the record that petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ A No.52645 of 2017 for the identical relief as prayed for by the relief no.1 in the present writ petition. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 09.11.2017. The order dated 09.11.2017 reads as follows :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri H.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. The petitioners are claiming to be working as Ayush doctors on fixed honorarium who are not being paid honorarium after the initial payment for the first month of working by the Director, National Rural Health Mission. The petitioners have submitted representations in this regard on 22.6.2017 and 17.10.2017 to the Chief Medical Officer, Ballia but no action on the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshu Pandey, Sachin Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dr. Aseem Kumar Ojha .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) representations have been taken. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the authentic copy of this order and in case any amount is found due and payable to the petitioners, the same shall be paid within a month thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of. " 3. It further reveals that inspite of aforesaid till date no final decision has been taken in the matter hence present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. From perusal of the records, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that no decision has been taken upon the pending representation of the petitioner pursuant to the judgement and order dated 09.11.2017. 6. In my considered view, it is a continuing cause of action to file contempt against non compliance of direction of this Court dated 09.11.2017 if representation has remained undecided till date. 7. Accordingly, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter. Liberty rests with the petitioner to apply contempt before appropriate forum, if so advised. 8. In view of the same, writ petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026 Pramod Tripathi WRIA No. 6663 of 2026 2 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad