Allahabad High Court
SUNIL KUMAR SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation with the corporation and refraining from deciding the merits.
Summary
The petitioners, Class IV employees of the State Warehousing Corporation, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the corporation to grant them annual increments and benefits under the 7th Pay Commission along with arrears. They also requested the court to order the corporation to decide representations dated 13.07.2022 and 14.07.2026. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Managing Director of the corporation and did not oppose a direction for the petitioners to file a fresh representation. The High Court observed that keeping the matter pending would serve no useful purpose and therefore disposed of the petition without addressing its merits. The Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation within three weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order, and directed the corporation to decide it within three months. Consequently, the writ petition was closed, leaving the substantive claim to be adjudicated administratively.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the petitioners' claim for annual increments and 7th Pay Commission benefits?
- Can the High Court issue a mandamus directing the corporation to grant the increments and benefits?
- Is it necessary for the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director before seeking judicial relief?
Subjects
- annual increments
- 7th Pay Commission
- mandamus
- writ petition
- service benefits
- administrative law
- representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14024 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Sonkar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vijay Vikram Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"(I) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.2 to award the benefit of annual
increments and 7th pay commission admissible to the petitioner along
with arrears.
(II) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated
13.07.2022 and 14.07.2026 and pass appropriate orders thereupon."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
engaged with State Warehousing Corporation as Class IV employee.
However they have not been extended the benefit of annual increments, the
recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission, and all consequential service
benefits admissible to them.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has contended that the
grievance of the petitioners with regard to the grant of annual increments,
benefits of 7th Pay Commission, and all consequential benefit thereof
admissible to the petitioners can be more appropriately redressed by the
Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation,
Bhandaran Bhawan, New Hyderabad, Lucknow (respondent No.3) 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.
WRIA No. 14024 of 2026
2
5. 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 petitioners to move a
fresh representation with respect to his grievances, as raised in this petition,
within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this
order and a self attested copy of the instant writ petition before the
respondent No.3, 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 other legal
impediment.
6. With the aforesaid direction, instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
September 8, 2026
VS
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…