Allahabad High Court
HARI SHANKERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
Mandamus cannot be granted where the petitioner has not challenged the termination order underlying the representation.
Summary
The petitioner, a former peon/chainman, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to decide a representation he submitted on 21 August 2014 and to grant consequential service benefits. The representation pertained to his termination order dated 10 March 1998, which he had not legally challenged. The Court observed that the petitioner had not contested the termination order and therefore could not claim any relief. Consequently, the Court held that no mandamus could be issued. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a mandamus can be issued to compel the State to decide a representation when the underlying termination order has not been challenged
Subjects
- mandamus
- termination of service
- representation
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 12007 of 2015
Hari Shanker
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava,
M.K. Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.67)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. List revised.
2. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Dileep Kesarwani,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State is
present.
3. The instant petition has been filed with the following
prayer:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding/directing the respondent no.1 to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure
No.13 to this writ petition) within a period to be specified by
this Hon'ble Court.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding/directing the respondent no.1 to provide all
consequential benefits of services to the petitioner."
4. From perusal of the representation dated 21.08.2014, it
appears that the service of the petitioner on the post of
Peon/Chainman was terminated vide order dated 10.03.1998,
against which the petitioner moved a representation without
challenging the order dated 10.03.1998.
WRIA No. 12007 of 2015
2
5. In such view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner as the petitioner has not challenged the termination
order dated 10.03.1998.
6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
May 7, 2026
Ashish Pd.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…