Allahabad High Court
MEENA AGARWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court held that the petition is barred as a second writ for the same relief and disposed of it, directing the petitioner to file a representation for her pension and salary claims.
Summary
The petitioner, Meena Agarwal, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay her salary from 1 January 1994 to 15 May 2007 along with pension benefits. The State argued that the petition was barred as a second writ for the same relief, since the salary claim had already been raised in Service Single No. 2775 of 1994, which was later consigned to record. The court noted that while the earlier petition covered the salary claim, the petitioner’s entitlement to pension and salary for sanctioned medical leave remained a continuing cause of action. The court held that the present petition could not be entertained as a duplicate and, by consent of the parties, disposed of it at the admission stage. The petitioner was directed to file a representation before the concerned authorities within one week, after which the claim would be considered expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the present writ petition is maintainable as a second petition for the same salary relief already raised in Service Single No. 2775 of 1994.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and pension benefits for the period 01‑01‑1994 to 15‑05‑2007, including salary for sanctioned medical leave.
- Whether the petition should be disposed at the admission stage with a direction to file a representation before the authorities.
Subjects
- service law
- pension entitlement
- salary claim
- writ of mandamus
- second petition
- contempt remedy
- representation
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13369 of 2026
Meena Agarwal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava,
Harshit Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Harshit Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-State.
2. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that under the
influence of the Manager, the petitioner was constrained to
submit her resignation on 18.02.1994; but however, the same
was withdrawn subsequently on 19.02.1994. However, when
the same was not being accepted and she was not permitted to
join, she approached this court by way of filing a writ petition
being Service Single No. 2775 of 1994 (Meena Agarwal Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors.); however subsequently vide order dated
01.09.2017, the said writ petition was consigned to record by
observing that two incumbents working on the post have
agreed that the salary be divided equally amongst them and
there is no dispute between them to that extent. However, the
perusal of the order dated 01.09.2017 also indicates that no
further relief was granted by this Court, while passing the order
dated 01.09.2017.
3. Now again, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction that the
admissible salary to the petitioner for the period from
01.01.1994 to 15.05.2007 i.e. till her date of retirement, may be
WRIA No. 13369 of 2026
2
paid to her along with the pensionary benefits.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned
Standing Counsel that the claim has been raised in a highly
belated manner and as far as the salary is concerned, the
petitioner had a remedy to proceed by way of filing a contempt
against the order dated 01.09.2017; but for the reason best
known to her, she did not avail the said remedy. Certain claim
also is said to have been raised for the first time i.e. with
respect to the leave encashment and to pay the salary of various
period towards the sanctioned medical leave, which is still
lying unpaid in school record. However, this Court finds that as
far as the claim of the salary is concerned, the same was the
subject matter of Service Single No. 2775 of 1994 (Meena
Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.); and accordingly the
present writ petition cannot be entertained being the second
writ petition for the same relief.
5. However, the perusal of the order dated 01.09.2017,
indicates that the petitioner had worked on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the Institution in question and as such, in case she is
entitled to pension, the same is required to be accorded
consideration; as this Court has held that grant of pension is a
continuing cause of action; and similarly the salary for the
period of sanctioned medical leave.
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in case petitioner
moves a representation regarding her claim for the pensionary
benefits, as well as the salary for the period for which leave
was sanctioned, the same shall be decided in accordance with
law, after scrutinizing her service records.
7. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served
in keeping the present writ petition pending; and accordingly
by the consent of the parties, the same is being disposed off at
the admission stage with the direction to the petitioner to file a
representation before the concerned Respondent Authorities
WRIA No. 13369 of 2026
3
within a period of one week from today; and in the event such
an application is filed within the stipulated period, the same
shall be considered strictly in accordance with law,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with
the application.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed off.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 8, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…