Allahabad High Court
SHUBHANSHU SHEKHAR PANDEYversusREGIONAL MANAGER RAJYA BHANDARAN CORPORATION U.P. LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without addressing merits, directing the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Regional Manager for expeditious decision.
Summary
Shubhanshu Shekhar Pandey filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of his services with the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, alleging that his earlier representation on the matter remained undecided. The respondents contended that the issue is factual and must be determined by the corporation’s Regional Manager, and that the petitioner should file a fresh representation to clarify his employment status. The Court observed that continued pendency of the writ would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, it directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager within three weeks and directed the Regional Manager to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months. No merits of the regularisation claim were addressed, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition seeking regularisation of services is maintainable or should be decided by the corporation’s administrative authority
- Whether the court should direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager
Subjects
- regularisation
- service
- writ petition
- administrative law
- representation
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15892 of 2026
Shubhanshu Shekhar Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Regional Manager Rajya Bhandaran Corporation
U.P. Lucknow And Another .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hari Narayan Singh, Kanchan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bal Mukund Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard Smt. Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bal
Mukund Singh, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Warehousing
Corporation (respondent nos. 1 and 2).
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation seeking
regularization of their services has not been decided till date.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter requires
factual determination, as per the applicable law, by the competent authority
in the first instance, and that the claim of the petitioners needs to be
ascertained as to whether they were appointed by the Corporation on its rolls
or were contractual employees engaged through a contractor. However, he
fairly contends that the claim of the petitioners for regularization is liable to
be considered and decided by the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1), and he has no objection if a
direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be
moved by the present petitioners within such stipulated period, as may be
directed by this Court.
4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioners to move a
fresh representation before the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1) to ventilate their grievances, as
raised in this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with
WRIA No. 15892 of 2026
2
a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ
petition, who, in turn, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with
law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date
of production of the same, if there is no any other legal impediment.
5. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.
September 30, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…