Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, with the petitioner directed to move a fresh representation before the Managing Director for adjudication.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Mishra, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to consider and decide his representation for promotional and attendant benefits with interest. Respondent No.2 argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Managing Director and did not oppose a direction for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation. The Court held that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose and ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director within three weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order. The Managing Director was directed to decide the representation within three months, provided no legal impediment exists. The Court disposed of the writ petition without addressing its merits.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for redressing the petitioner's grievance regarding promotional benefits?
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation?
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- administrative law
- promotion benefits
- representation
- High Court
- procedural remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14182 of 2026
Vinod Kumar Mishra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kunal Shah
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent no.1 and Mr. Vijay Vikram , learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following relief:
"(1). Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondent no.2 to consider & decide representation (Ax.5) of the
petitioner for promotional and other attendant benefits with interest from
the date on which juniors were promoted within stipulated period of time
and same may be also disbursed accordingly."
3. Mr. Vijay Vikram, learned counsel for contesting respondent no. 2 has
contended that the grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ
petition can be more appropriately redressed by the Managing Director
(respondent no.2), and he has no objection if a direction is issued for
expeditious disposal of the 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 Managing Director (respondent no. 2) to
ventilate 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, 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
WRIA No. 14182 of 2026
2
no any other legal impediment.
5. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition stands disposed of.
September 9, 2026
VS
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…