Allahabad High Court
RAFI AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court did not decide the merits of the increment claim but directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and decide it within twelve weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Rafi Ahmad, filed a writ petition seeking a directive for the payment of one increment, relying on a representation he submitted on 12 September 2026. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the matter should be decided on its merits, while the standing counsel for the respondents contended that the petition was redundant since the representation had already been made. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered the second respondent (the State) to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law, granting a hearing to all concerned parties and directing a decision within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order. The Court expressly stated that it had not examined the substantive merits of the increment claim and was merely issuing a procedural direction. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without a substantive ruling on the petitioner’s entitlement to the increment.
Issues considered
- What procedural direction, if any, can the High Court issue to a government respondent regarding a pending representation for an increment?
- Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition on merits or merely direct consideration of the representation.
Subjects
- writ petition
- increment
- representation
- administrative law
- procedural direction
- hearing
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15853 of 2026
Rafi Ahmad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for decision on his
representation dated 12.09.2026 seeking payment of one increment.
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 No. 2 be directed to consider the grievance of the
petitioner in accordance with law.
3. In view of these facts, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the
representation dated 12.09.2026of the petitioner in accordance with law, after
providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.
4. 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.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
September 29, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…