Allahabad High Court
JAIRAM PAL AND 18 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to claim the additional increment as per the judgment in Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of U.P.
Summary
Petitioners, who are Sub Inspectors in the Uttar Pradesh Police, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking an additional increment after completing 19 years of service, relying on the precedent set in Ghanshyam Tiwari v. State of U.P. and subsequent cases. The petition referenced earlier judgments, including Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Radhe Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P., which upheld the entitlement to such increments. The learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the continued applicability of that legal position. The Court therefore directed each petitioner 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 twelve weeks of receipt of the representation. The petition was consequently disposed with this directive.
Issues considered
- Whether Sub Inspectors who have completed 19 years of service are entitled to an additional increment of pay under the precedent set by 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 service
- Increment
- Service tenure
- Judicial precedent
- Writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15775 of 2026
Jairam Pal And 18 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sukesh Kumar
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 twelve weeks of receipt of fresh representation.
September 28, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…