Allahabad High Court
SMT DAMYANTIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court disposed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent, without adjudicating the merits.
Summary
Smt Damyanti filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Nagar Ayukt, Bareilly to release her first ACP and service arrears from 2022 and to decide a representation dated 17‑02‑2026. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Nagar Ayukt itself and did not oppose a direction for the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The Court held that the petition could be more appropriately dealt with by the administrative authority and therefore dismissed the writ without reaching the merits. It ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks and directed the respondent to decide it within three months. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for redressing the petitioner's grievance regarding release of service arrears and decision on her representation?
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the administrative authority to release arrears and decide the representation?
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- service arrears
- administrative law
- jurisdiction
- representation
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14286 of 2026
Smt Damyanti
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Kumar Tiwari, Shyam Mani
Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on Board.
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 release (give) the amount of first
A.C.P. and arrears of service from 2022 to the petitioner.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of
petitioner dated 17.02.2026."
3. Shri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents no.2 & 3 has contended that the grievance of the petitioner,
as raised in the instant writ petition, can be more appropriately redressed
by the Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Bareilly (respondent no.2) and that 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
WRIA No. 14286 of 2026
2
fresh representation with respect to her 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.2, 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.
5. With the aforesaid direction, instant writ petition stands finally
disposed of.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
September 9, 2026
VR
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA RATAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…