Allahabad High Court
SMT PINKI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, and the respondent is directed to decide the pending appeal within twelve weeks.
Summary
Smt. Pinki Devi filed a writ petition challenging a 19 September 2025 order of the District Development Officer, Basti, which reverted her basic pay scale. The petitioner sought to add the Chief Development Officer as respondent No. 6, alleging that an appeal against the order was already pending before that officer. The State counsel argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal and that the petition should not be kept pending. The court, without addressing the merits, disposed of the writ petition and directed respondent No. 6 to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, after hearing the parties. The order thus closes the writ petition and sets a time‑frame for the administrative appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging an administrative order is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available.
- Whether the court can direct the administrative authority to decide the pending appeal within a specified time period.
Subjects
- service law
- pay scale
- writ petition
- administrative order
- appeal
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15456 of 2026
Smt Pinki Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sheikh Moazzam Inam
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to add Chief
Development Officer as respondent no. 6 in the array of parties during
course of the day.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
19.09.2025 passed by District Development Officer, Basti by which the
petitioner has been reverted on basic pay scale.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has alternative
remedy of filing appeal against the order impugned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already
moved an appeal before respondent no. 6, 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 no. 6 to decide the appeal 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 No. 6 to consider and decide the
aforementioned appeal of the petitioner, in accordance with law,
WRIA No. 15456 of 2026
2
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 24, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…