Allahabad High Court
STATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The tribunal's order allowing the promotion claim stands, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, the State and four officials, challenged a judgment of the State Public Service Tribunal that allowed the claim of a deceased employee’s legal representatives for promotion. The petitioners argued that the employee had refused to exercise an option for promotion and that there was no record of this refusal, and also contended that the claim was filed belatedly. The tribunal had found no record of the employee’s refusal and proceeded on that basis. The High Court observed that earlier approaches to the tribunal were evident, and that the tribunal was not at fault for doubting the claim due to the absence of a record. Consequently, the Court found no ground for judicial interference and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the tribunal erred in accepting the promotion claim despite the employee's alleged refusal to exercise the option without any record.
- Whether the belated filing of the claim bars the employee’s representatives from obtaining promotion.
- Whether the writ court has jurisdiction to set aside the tribunal's order on these grounds.
Subjects
- promotion
- public service tribunal
- judicial review
- belated approach
- record omission
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6317 of 2026
State Of Up And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Public Service Tribunal And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Kumar Tiwari,
Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilanand Mishra
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appears on behalf of petitioners (State functionaries). He
submits, under challenge is judgment dated 1st December, 2025
made by the State Public Service Tribunal. By it claim petition of
the deceased employee, whose legal representatives are
respondent nos. 2 to 6, was allowed. The claim was for
promotion. He submits, the deceased employee was provided
with option but he did not exercise it. Hence, he was not
considered for the promotion. Without prejudice he submits, in
any event the claim for promotion was made by the deceased
employee on delay. In other words, he had belatedly approached
the tribunal.
2. On query Dr. Tiwari refers to paragraph 8 in impugned
judgment and submits, though it is a fact that the deceased
employee refused to exercise the option but, there is no record of
it. He seeks interference.
3. Mr. Akhilanand Mishra, learned advocate appears and files his
power executed by respondent nos. 2 to 6. He submits, the
tribunal upon hearing petitioners and his clients had passed
impugned order, giving reasons. There is no ground for
interference in judicial review.
4. So far as belated approach is concerned, we see from
documents disclosed in the writ petition that there was earlier
approach to the tribunal. The judgment was set aside by the writ
Court and impugned judgment has come on restoration of the
matter. Moving on to the other contention regarding omission to
exercise option, we cannot fault the tribunal for proceeding as it
did, to disbelieve petitioners on absence of record.
WRIA No. 6317 of 2026
2
5. The writ petition is found to be without merit. It is dismissed.
May 7, 2026
sailesh
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…