Allahabad High Court

NEMPAL SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The petition is dismissed and the respondents are directed to decide the pending representation/application within twelve weeks.

Summary

The petitioners, Nempal Singh and another, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider and determine their entitlement to financial/pay upgradation under Government Orders dated 05‑11‑2014 and 03‑03‑2015, after examining their complete service records. They argued that similarly situated police personnel appointed later had received the benefit and that their own appointments as Sub‑Inspectors in 1992 and 1993 were being ignored. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, contended that the petition was unnecessary and that the pending representation/application of the petitioners should simply be decided within a reasonable time. The Court, without expressing any view on the merits, disposed of the petition and ordered the respondent authority to decide the pending representation/application expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, after giving a hearing. The order thus dismisses the writ petition and imposes a time‑bound direction on the respondent.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents should be compelled by mandamus to consider the petitioners' claim for financial/pay upgradation under the specified Government Orders.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same financial/pay benefit as later appointed Sub‑Inspectors.
Whether the Court should direct a time‑bound decision on the pending representation/application of the petitioners.

Subjects

Writ of Mandamus
Pay Upgradation
Government Orders
Service Entitlement
Uttar Pradesh Police
Administrative Law
Time‑bound Direction

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - A No. - 14827 of 2026

Nempal Singh And Another
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Shrikant Chaturvedi, Vijay Kumar
                                      Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

     "a) issue a writ, order or direction in the Mandamus commanding the
     respondents to consider and determine the entitlement of the petitioners
     to financial/pay upgradation under the Government Orders dated
     05.11.2014 and 03.03.2015, after examining their complete service
     record;

     b) Deoria Issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to
     take into consideration the departmental orders issued in Bareilly,
     Gorakhpur, and other districts, whereby the corresponding benefit under
     the aforesaid Government Orders has already been granted similarly
     situated police personnel;

     c) Issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to
     specifically examine the petitioners' claim in the light of the fact that the
     petitioners were appointed as Sub-Inspectors on 01.04.1992 and
     26.06.1993, whereas subsequently appointed Sub-Inspectors, including
     those appointed in 2015 and 2016, have been extended the corresponding
     financial/pay benefit."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is seeking
                                                                                             WRIA No. 14827 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    financial/pay upgradation under the Government Orders dated 05.11.2014
                                    and 03.03.2015, after examining their complete service record. In this
                                    regard, the petitioner has moved a representation/application which is
                                    pending consideration.

                                    4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be
                                    served in keeping this petition pending and it would be appropriate to direct
                                    the respondent authority to decide the representation/application of the
                                    petitioner within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

                                    5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing
                                    any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of
                                    finally with a direction to respondent authority to consider and decide the
                                    aforementioned representation/application of the petitioner, in accordance
                                    with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the
                                    date of production of a certified copy of this order after giving opportunity
                                    of hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal
                                    impediment.



                                                                                      (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Ved Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…