Allahabad High Court
SATENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to consider any fresh representation filed within two weeks, without examining the merits.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a punishment order that placed him at the minimum pay scale for one year and sought direction for the respondents to grant increments now that the year had elapsed. He had already submitted a representation to Respondent No. 4 regarding this grievance. The petitioner’s counsel requested that the court allow him to file a fresh, comprehensive representation. The court disposed of the petition, directing that any representation filed within two weeks be considered by Respondent No. 4, with a hearing and a decision within twelve weeks, without examining the merits of the case. The order was made strictly in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the court can direct the respondents to grant salary increments after the period of a punishment order has elapsed
- Whether the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation concerning the punishment order
- Whether the court should entertain the petition on merits or merely direct procedural compliance
Subjects
- punishment order
- minimum pay scale
- salary increment
- representation
- writ petition
- administrative law
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15061 of 2026
Satendra Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Shubham
Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by punishment order, it has
been directed that petitioner will be placed at the minimum pay scale for one year. It
has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents
be directed to accord increments as the period of one year has already lapsed. In this
regard petitioner has already submitted a representation before respondent No. 4.
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.
3. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
may be permitted to file a comprehensive representation afresh.
4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with direction that in case such a
representation is submitted by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the same
shall be decided by respondent No. 4 in accordance with law, after providing
opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of twelve weeks thereafter.
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.
September 21, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…