Allahabad High Court
SUKHRAM YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners' claims must be considered and decided in line with the Ghanshyam Tiwari judgment, directing them to file individual representations.
Summary
Petitioners, Sub-Inspectors in the Uttar Pradesh Police, filed a writ under Article 226 seeking an additional pay increment after completing 19 years of service, relying on the precedent set in Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of U.P. and subsequent cases. The petitioners argued that the legal position affirmed in Ghanshyam Tiwari and followed in Virendra Kumar and Radhe Shyam Yadav remains unchanged and that many employees have already received the benefit. The State's standing counsel could not dispute this position. The Court directed the petitioners to file individual representations, attaching a certified copy of the order, and ordered that their claims be decided in accordance with the Ghanshyam Tiwari judgment within six weeks of receipt. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether Sub-Inspectors who have completed 19 years of service are entitled to an additional increment of pay as per the judgment in Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of U.P.
- Whether the legal position established in Ghanshyam Tiwari and subsequent cases remains applicable to the petitioners.
Subjects
- Article 226
- pay increment
- police service benefits
- judicial precedent
- individual representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15321 of 2026
Sukhram Yadav And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Yadav, Santosh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners
who were working as Sub-Inspector 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 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.
September 24, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…