Allahabad High Court
SUJATA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court held that, in view of the pending representation, the petitioner is not entitled to a mandamus and the respondent must be directed to consider the representation within a stipulated period.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujata Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to pay family pension, gratuity, assured career progression benefits, Rashkaran, and leave encashment. The petitioner had already submitted a representation on 13-04-2026 to the third respondent, which was still pending. The learned standing counsel argued that issuing a writ would be unnecessary while the representation was under consideration. The court held that the petition should not be kept pending and directed the second respondent to consider the pending representation, provide a hearing to all parties, and decide within twelve weeks. The court clarified that it did not examine the merits of the claim and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when a representation on the same grievance is pending before the authority
- Whether the court should direct the respondent to consider the pending representation instead of adjudicating the petition on merits
Subjects
- mandamus
- family pension
- gratuity
- assured career progression
- leave encashment
- pending representation
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14933 of 2026
Sujata Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, Rajneesh
Kumar Srivastava, Smt. Priyanka
Srivastava
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 relief:-
"To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to
the respondent no. 2 to pay the family pension, Gratuity, 3rd ACP
(Assured Career Progression), Rashkaran, Leave Encashment etc.) to the
petitioner accordingly."
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has
also moved a representation in this regard on 13.04.2026 before
respondent No. 3, which is pending consideration.
3. 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.
4. In view of these facts, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and
decide the representation dated 13.04.2026 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.
5. 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.
WRIA No. 14933 of 2026
2
6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 17, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…