Allahabad High Court
KRISHANPAL SINGH AND 47 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is disposed, and the claim for additional increment shall be considered per the Ghanshyam Tiwari judgment upon individual representation.
Summary
Petitioners, serving as Sub Inspectors and Head Constables in the Uttar Pradesh Police, filed a writ under Article 226 seeking an additional increment after completing 19 years of service, relying on the precedent set in Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of U.P. and subsequent cases. The Court noted that the legal position affirmed in Ghanshyam Tiwari, Virendra Kumar, and Radhe Shyam Yadav remained unchanged and was not contested by the State's standing counsel. Consequently, the Court directed each petitioner to file individual representations along with a certified copy of the order. Upon such representation, the claim would be adjudicated in accordance with the Ghanshyam Tiwari judgment within six weeks of receipt. The petition was therefore disposed with the specified procedural direction.
Issues considered
- Whether police personnel who have completed 19 years of service are entitled to an additional increment of pay under the precedent established in Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of U.P.
- Whether the earlier judgments cited continue to govern the present claim.
Subjects
- additional increment
- police service
- Article 226
- precedent
- Ghanshyam Tiwari
- employment benefits
- public service
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14484 of 2026
Krishanpal Singh And 47 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Nigam, Irfan Ahmad
Malik
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioners who were working as Sub Inspector and Head Constable in
State Police, want an additional increment of pay on completion of 19
years of service in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of
Ghanshyam Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & others passed in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012 which was followed in the judgment of
Virendra Kumar and another v. State of U.P. & 3 Others, Writ - A
No. 48601 of 2015 against which Special Appeal (Defective) No. 538 of
2016 came to be dismissed on 07.09.2016 so also the Special Leave
Petition (CC) No. 6316 of 2017 came to be dismissed on 03.04.2017.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that this legal
position has remained intact as on date and many such employees as
petitioners have been accorded benefit. He has also placed before the
Court recent order of this Court passed in the case of Radhe Shyam
Yadav & 4 Others v. State of U.P. & 6 Others, Writ - A No. 6753 of
2023.
4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid legal
position.
5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction
WRIA No. 14484 of 2026
2
that each of the petitioners is required to move their individual
representation along with the certified copy of this order and in the event
representation is made, petitioners' claim shall be considered and disposed
of in terms of the judgment of Ghanshyam Tiwari (supra) by passing
appropriate orders within a period of six weeks of receipt of fresh
representation.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 11, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…