Allahabad High Court
MANOJ KUMAR AND 35 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is disposed with a direction that petitioners file individual representations, after which their claims will be decided per the Ghanshyam Tiwari judgment.
Summary
Petitioners, who are constables with 19 years of service, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking an additional increment of pay, 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 those judgments remains unchanged and that many similar employees have already received the benefit. The Court noted that the standing counsel could not dispute this position and referenced a recent order in Radhe Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. The Court therefore disposed of the petition, directing each petitioner to file an individual representation along with a certified copy of the order. Upon such representation, the claim will be considered in accordance with the Ghanshyam Tiwari judgment within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether constables with 19 years of service are entitled to an additional increment of pay under the principle laid down in Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of U.P.
- Whether the legal position established in earlier judgments remains applicable to the present petitioners.
Subjects
- Article 226
- Police constable
- Increment of pay
- Service tenure
- Judicial precedent
- Administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15500 of 2026
Manoj Kumar And 35 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra Kumar Gupta
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 Constable 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…