Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

AKHILESH KUMAR PATHAK AND 53 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court held that the respondent authority must consider the petitioners' representation and decide the claim for promotional pay and related benefits within twelve weeks.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction for the State to grant them a promotional pay scale of Rs.4200, including training period calculations, and the benefits and arrears of the 7th Pay Commission. They relied on several Government Orders dated between 2012 and 2020. The respondents argued that the issue had already been decided in a 2009 judgment (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006) and a later 2023 decision (Writ‑A No. 12793 of 2023). The Court, after considering the submissions, directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioners' representation dated 03‑04‑2025, provide a hearing to all parties, and decide the matter within twelve weeks. The order essentially mandates compliance with the earlier policy orders and ensures timely adjudication of the salary claim. No monetary award was ordered, but the direction aims to secure the petitioners' entitlement under the 7th Pay Commission.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to the promotional pay scale of Rs.4200 and related benefits under the 7th Pay Commission as per the cited Government Orders.
  • Whether the matter is res integra in view of the earlier judgments of this Court (2009 and 2023).
  • Whether the respondent authority must be directed to decide the petitioners' representation within a stipulated time.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • promotional pay
  • grade pay
  • 7th Pay Commission
  • Article 226
  • writ petition
  • salary entitlement
  • assured career progression
  • administrative law

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - A No. - 14325 of 2026

Akhilesh Kumar Pathak And 53 Others
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                     :   Buddhi Prakash
Counsel for Respondent(s)                     :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
                 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for following relief:-

"a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of directing the
respondents authorities to granted promotional pay scale/ Grade Pay Rs.
4200/- after calculating the training period on account of completion of
16 years of services and also to grant to increment and benefits of 7th pay
commission (Revised Pay Scale) along with arrears, in view of the
relevant Government Order dated 17.03.2012, 05.11.2014, 03.03.2015,
26.08.2015, 22.12.2016 and 13.04.2020 with all consequential benefits.

b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondents authorities concern to pass appropriate order within
stipulated period of time, with regard to granting to salary of assured
career progression (ACP) pay grade scale of 4200/- (after calculating the
training period and also grant the increment and benefits of 7th pay
commission (revised pay scale) along with the arrears in view of to
relevant Government order dated 17.03.2012, 05.11.2014, 03.03.2015,
26.08.2015, benefits. 22.12.2016 and 13.04.2020 with all consequential"

2. It is contended that the controversy is no more res integra in light of
the judgement of this Court dated 08.04.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.24910 of 2006.

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that this Court has followed this
judgment in the matter of Writ-A No. 12793 of 2023 decided on
                                                                                       WRIA No. 14325 of 2026
                                                                 2


                                    16.08.2023.

                                    4. In view of these facts, concerned respondent is directed to consider
                                    and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 03.04.2025 in
                                    accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the
                                    concerned parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve
                                    weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.



                                                                                (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    September 17, 2026
                                    Nitika Sri.




Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.