Allahabad High Court
MAHENDRA NATH SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Principal Secretary and the respondent to decide the matter expeditiously, without expressing a view on the merits.
Summary
Petitioner Mahendra Nath Shukla filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Public Works, U.P., to pay his third Assured Career Progression benefits accrued on 17-12-2019, along with interest. He alleged that despite several representations, no decision had been taken by the respondents. The respondents contended that the petitioner should file a fresh representation ventilating all grievances, after which the department would consider and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The Court, after hearing counsel, directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks, attaching necessary documents, and the respondent to decide the matter within six weeks thereafter. The Court clarified that the order was not on the merits and that the respondent must independently consider the petition in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to issue a mandamus for payment of service benefits?
- Whether the Court can compel the respondent to make a decision on the pending representation without a detailed merits hearing?
Subjects
- Mandamus
- Article 226
- Writ Petition
- Public Service Benefits
- Administrative Law
- Representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5879 of 2026
Mahendra Nath Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhai Raj Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Abhai Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following
prayer:-
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondent no. 1 to forthwith pay benefits
accruing towards payment of third Assured Career
Progression accruing on 17.12.2019 as petitioner completed
26 years of satisfactory service alongside interest and in this
regard, in case, if need so arises, by way of reasoned speaking
order, on the representation of the petitioner which is lying in
the office of respondent without there being any decision/
adjudication therein, to be taken within stipulated period of
time which may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court in exercise
of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in this regard the
petitioner has already made various representations before the
respondents but till date no decision has been taken in the matter.
3. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that in
case, the petitioner will move fresh representation ventilating all their
grievances before the respondent No.1/Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow, he will consider the same and
pass appropriate orders in the matter expeditiously.
WRIA No. 5879 of 2026
2
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, the present petition has been disposed of
directing the petitioner to move fresh representation ventilating all his
grievances before the respondent No.1/Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow along with necessary
documents and certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks.
In case, the petitioner will file fresh representation within the aforesaid
period, the respondent No.1 will pass appropriate orders on the same most
expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter
strictly in accordance with law.
6. Since the writ petition has been decided on an ex-parte version without
seeking any response from the respondents, thus the passing of the order
today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into
the merits of the matter and the respondent No.1 shall accord independent
consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law
holding the field.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
April 23, 2026
saqlain
Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…