Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6678 (ALL)

SUDHIR KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/12168/2026 · 2026-09-08

Dinesh Pathak

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12168 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: "A. a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 08.02.2023 as well as reminder dated 26.04.2026 & 29.07.2026. B. a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent No. 3 stay the effect and operation of the impugned order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 08.07.2026. C. a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue working at Branch-Puranpur District-Pilibhit" 3. The petitioner has raised a grievance regarding his present place posting on the ground of certain family problem. 4. Having regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner, in the opinion of the Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application ventilating his grievances before the Managing Director (respondent No. 2), 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. Upon receipt of the said representation, the respondent No. 2 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manoj Nigam Sudhir Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, present writ petition stands disposed of. September 9, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 12168 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad