Allahabad High Court
RAMDARASH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private service provider; therefore, the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramdarash Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking an order directing the District Probation Officer, Azamgarh, to pay him salary for work performed as a Chaukidar. He claimed to have received an offer letter dated 12-11-2025 from an authorized secretary of a private service provider, IT World, and that he was working for the probation office without receiving salary. The Court examined the petition and noted that the offer came from a private service provider, not a public authority. It held that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be filed against a private person or service provider, and that the appropriate remedy lies in the common law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue a common law remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private service provider for non-payment of salary
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary from the District Probation Officer
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- private service provider
- salary entitlement
- common law remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6620 of 2026
Ramdarash Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with
prayer to direct the Respondent No.3 namely District Probation Officer,
Azamgarh to pay salary/ honorarium to the petitioner in lieu of
performing his duty as Chaukidar.
2. From perusal of the facts as narrated in the writ petition it appears that
petitioner was given offer dated 12.11.2025 under signature of
Respondent No.4 namely Authorized Secretary, IT World, B-8, Super
Market, Sultanpur. It is argued that pursuant to the aforesaid, the
petitioner is working in the office of the District Probation Officer,
Azamgarh but he is not getting his salary.
3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. From perusal of the record, it is clear that petitioner was given an offer
letter by the Respondent No.4 who is a service provider. It is settled law
that writ petition against the service provider / private person is not
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
appropriate remedy lies under the common law.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner
to avail the common law remedy.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 5, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…