Allahabad High Court
DR NEERAJ KISHORE MISHRAversusSTATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as there is no legal right to the increment.
Summary
Dr. Neeraj Kishore Mishra filed an intra‑court appeal seeking to set aside a single judge’s order dismissing his petition for a first or second service increment. The appeal was filed 23 days late, but the delay was condoned. The court examined whether the appellant had any legal entitlement to the increments and held that no such right existed, noting that an irregular monetary increment granted to a third person does not create a vested right. Consequently, the appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is legally entitled to a first or second service increment
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned
Subjects
- service increment
- legal entitlement
- intra‑court appeal
- delay condonation
- service law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 39 of 2026
Dr Neeraj Kishore Mishra
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rohit Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
Ref.: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.02 of 2026
1. Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 23 days.
2. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Delay condonation application is allowed.
Ref.: Appeal
3. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the original
petitioner/appellant, Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
4. The present intra-court appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned single judge in
Dr.Neeraj Kishore Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
2025:AHC:205408).
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order as no
legal entitlement exists to receive either a first or a second increment, nor
does a legal right to an increment arise solely as an irregular monetary
increment granted to a third person.
6. The learned single judge has rightly dismissed the petition on the correct
SPLAD No. 39 of 2026
2
principle. Unless a right is vested in accordance with law, no relief may be
granted in such matters.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
March 19, 2026
Anurag/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…