Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SURSENAPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

A writ petition lacking essential factual details and supporting documents cannot be entertained, but the petitioner may be given an opportunity to file a fresh, complete representation.

Summary

The petitioner, Sursenap, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking payment of arrears of salary from the State of Uttar Pradesh and five other respondents. The petition was found to be deficient as it did not contain necessary details or supporting documents to substantiate the claim. The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Niharika Singh, is a recent entrant to the Bar and, despite the drafting shortcomings, allowed a chance to rectify the petition. The court ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation with all required particulars and evidence within three weeks, failing which the claim would not be considered. If the fresh representation is filed, the respondents will consider the claim in accordance with law.

Issues considered

  • Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite lacking essential details and supporting documents for a salary arrears claim

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • salary arrears
  • procedural deficiency
  • court discretion
  • fresh representation

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                             WRIT - A No. - 6353 of 2026

                                    Sursenap
                                                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                        Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                                                              .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Maya Pati Pandey, Niharika Singh
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)          : C.S.C.

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

                                    1. Heard Ms. Niharika Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri

                                    Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.


                                    2. In writ petition necessary details are not mentioned which could

                                    support the prayer of petitioner for arrears of salary.


                                    3. Still considering that Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocate has recently joined

                                    Bar, therefore, ignoring the shortcomings in drafting, this writ petition is

                                    disposed of that in case petitioner files a fresh representation mentioning

                                    all necessary details alongwith supporting documents within three weeks

                                    from today, only in such event concerned respondent will consider the

                                    claim of petitioner in accordance with law.


                                                                                 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    May 7, 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.