Allahabad High Court
VINESHversusREGIONAL MANAGER RAJYA BHANDARAN AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager, who must decide it expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinesh, filed a writ petition alleging that his request for regularisation of service with the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation had not been decided. The respondents argued that the matter required factual determination by the competent authority and that the petitioner's status—whether a regular employee or a contractual worker—must first be ascertained by the Regional Manager. They further stated that the petitioner's claim should be considered by the Regional Manager and expressed no objection to the court directing a fresh representation to be filed. The court held that keeping the writ pending would serve no useful purpose and therefore disposed of the petition without addressing its merits. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager within three weeks, and the Regional Manager to decide the matter within three months, subject to any legal impediment. The writ petition was thus dismissed and the matter remitted to the administrative authority for expeditious resolution.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s grievance for regularisation of service is justiciable before the High Court or must be decided by the Regional Manager of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation
Subjects
- service regularisation
- writ petition
- administrative law
- representation
- expeditious disposal
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14004 of 2026
Vinesh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Regional Manager Rajya Bhandaran And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hari Narayan Singh, Kanchan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bal Mukund Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bal Mukund Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation
(respondent nos. 1 and 2).
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation seeking
regularization of his service has not been decided till date.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter requires
factual determination, as per the applicable law, by the competent authority
in the first instance, and that the claim of the petitioner needs to be
ascertained as to whether he was appointed by the Corporation on its rolls or
was contractual employee engaged through a contractor. However, he fairly
contends that the claim of the petitioner for regularization is liable to be
considered and decided by the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1), and he has no objection if a
direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be
moved by the present petitioner within such stipulated period, as may be
directed by this Court.
4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioner to move a
fresh representation before the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1) to ventilate his grievance, as
raised in this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with
WRIA No. 14004 of 2026
2
a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ
petition, who, in turn, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with
law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date
of production of the same, if there is no any other legal impediment.
5. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.
September 8, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…