Allahabad High Court
ASHOK SINGH @ ASHOK KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, with the petitioners directed to approach the Vice‑Chancellor through a fresh representation.
Summary
The petitioners, Ashok Singh and others, filed a writ petition alleging that while arrears of salary had been paid, the interest component due on the delayed payment was not released. The respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the University, contended that the grievance should be addressed by the Vice‑Chancellor of the University, who is the appropriate authority. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, found that keeping the writ petition pending would not serve any useful purpose. By mutual consent, the Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Vice‑Chancellor within seven days, accompanied by a certified copy of the order, and expecting a decision within two months. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the petitioners' claim for interest on delayed salary arrears?
Subjects
- interest on salary arrears
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- fresh representation
- university administration
- employment benefits
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16003 of 2026
Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar And 3
Others .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhanu Pratap Singh,
Surendra Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rakesh Kumar
Gupta
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State
and Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
though the payment has been made for the arrears of salary but
the interest component has not been released.
3. Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent-University submits that the grievance of the
petitioners qua non-payment of interest on the delayed arrears
can more appropriately be addressed by the Vice-Chancellor of
the University (respondent No.2); and he has no objection in
case direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the fresh
representation to be moved by the petitioners, and the same
shall be considered in accordance with law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served
in keeping the aforesaid writ petition pending and by the
consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the
admission stage, directing the petitioners to file a fresh
representation before the respondent no.2 within 7 days from
WRIA No. 16003 of 2026
2
today, along with the certified copy of this order; and in the
event such a representation is filed by the petitioners within the
said period, it is expected that the respondent no.2 shall
consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a
period of next 2 Months.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed off.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 30, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…