Allahabad High Court
BABITA SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court ordered the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation within twelve weeks, without adjudicating the merits, and disposed the petition.
Summary
Petitioner Babita Srivastava, a stenographer in the Public Works Department, Prayagraj, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the respondents to regularize her service and grant benefits under the old pension scheme, as well as to decide her representation dated 17‑08‑2026. The petition also relied on Supreme Court pronouncements in Special Appeal No. 21/2022 and SLP (Civil) No. 11915/2022. The High Court, after noting that the petitioner had already made a representation, declined to examine the merits and instead directed respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the representation within twelve weeks, providing a hearing to all parties. The order was issued strictly in accordance with law, and the petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation concerning regularisation of service and pension benefits.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of regularisation and the old pension scheme under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation Rules, 2001.
Subjects
- regularisation
- ad‑hoc appointment
- mandamus
- pension scheme
- representation
- public service
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14442 of 2026
Babita Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahesh Sharma, Sushil Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondents to grant all the benefits of regularization of services of
petitioner on the post of Stenographer in the Public Works Department,
Prayagraj since 20.12.2001 i.e. date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh
Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside The Preview of
The Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment), Rules, 2001, in view
of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court as affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various pronouncements and to grant all benefits of old
pension scheme alongwith interest, in the interest of justice.
Issue is writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent authorities /respondent no. 2 & 3, to decide the representation
of petitioner dated 17.8.2026 (Annexure No. 10), within a reasonable time
as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the light of the judgments passed in
Special Appeal No. 21/2022 State of U.P. and others Vs Raj Bahadur
Postor as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. SLP (Civil) No. 11915/2022 & writ petition No. 1717 of 2026
dated 15.7.2026, in the interest of justice."
2. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as petitioner has already
represented, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending and it would be appropriate that respondent be directed to
consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.
WRIA No. 14442 of 2026
2
3. In view of these facts, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider
and decide the representation dated 17.08.2026 of the petitioner 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.
4. It is made clear that this court has not examined the matter on merits
and the order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 11, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…