Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAJEEV KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed for lack of specific legal and factual averments, but may be entertained upon a fresh, substantive representation.

Summary

Petitioners Rajeev Kumar and two others filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking the grant of a specific pay scale for a post. The petitioners' counsel was unable to cite any specific legal provision or factual averment supporting their claim. The Court noted the lack of a substantive basis for the relief sought. In the interest of justice, the Court disposed of the petition, directing that the petitioners may make a fresh representation with a substantive legal and factual position. Only upon such a fresh representation will the respondents consider the claim for the pay scale.

Issues considered

  • What legal basis, if any, supports the petitioners' claim to a specific pay scale for the post?
  • Whether a writ petition lacking specific averments or statutory provisions is maintainable?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • pay scale
  • administrative law
  • justice
  • fresh representation

Judgment

                                              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                              WRIT - A No. - 6187 of 2026

                                    Rajeev Kumar And 2 Others
                                                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                         Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                                                  .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Satya Prakash Singh, Sumit Singh, Sr.
                                                                        Advocate
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)         : Ajal Krishna, C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 32
                                                HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

                                    1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Tanu

                                    Roopanwal, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri Ajal

                                    Krishna, Advocate for Respondent-5.


                                    2. Learned counsel for petitioners is not able to show any specific

                                    averment or provision of law which could support the prayer of petitioner.


                                    3. Still in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of that in case

                                    petitioner is able to show by way of a fresh representation any substantive

                                    position of law and fact, then only concerned respondent will consider

                                    their claim to grant pay scale of a particular post.


                                                                                  (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    AK




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.