Allahabad High Court

DR. ASEEM KUMAR OJHAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: PRAKASH PADIA

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed, with the court directing the petitioner to seek contempt proceedings for non‑compliance with the earlier order.

Summary

Dr. Aseem Kumar Ojha, a surplus doctor, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay his salary/honorarium from October 2016 and to allow him to sign the attendance register. He had previously filed a similar petition in 2017, which was disposed by a Division Bench directing the respondents to consider his representation within six weeks and pay any dues. No decision was taken on that direction, prompting the present petition. The High Court examined the records and concluded that the earlier order remained unimplemented, giving rise to a continuing cause of action for contempt. The Court declined to grant the writ relief, indicating that the petitioner may pursue contempt proceedings, and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to mandamus directing payment of salary/honorarium from October 2016.
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to sign the attendance register and receive regular salary like other surplus doctors.
Whether the court should grant relief despite a prior order directing the respondents to decide the representation within six weeks.
Whether non‑compliance with the 09‑11‑2017 order gives rise to contempt proceedings.

Subjects

Mandamus
Salary
Honorarium
Contempt
Writ Petition
Public Service
Non‑compliance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6663 of 2026

Dr. Aseem Kumar Ojha
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshu Pandey, Sachin Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the
following prayers :-

"i. Issue a suitable writ order in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to pay the salaries/honorarium of the petitioner, due from
01.10.2016 to till now.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the
respondents to permit him to make signature on attendance register, adjust
him and to pay the regular salaries like other Surplus Doctors."

2. It reveals from perusal of the record that petitioner earlier
approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ A No.52645 of
2017 for the identical relief as prayed for by the relief no.1 in the
present writ petition. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed
of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated
09.11.2017. The order dated 09.11.2017 reads as follows :-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State and Sri H.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.3.
The petitioners are claiming to be working as Ayush doctors on fixed
honorarium who are not being paid honorarium after the initial payment for the
first month of working by the Director, National Rural Health Mission. The
petitioners have submitted representations in this regard on 22.6.2017 and
17.10.2017 to the Chief Medical Officer, Ballia but no action on the
WRIA No. 6663 of 2026
2

representations have been taken.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of
with direction to respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the aforesaid
representation of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of the authentic copy of this order and in
case any amount is found due and payable to the petitioners, the same shall
be paid within a month thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of. "

3. It further reveals that inspite of aforesaid till date no final decision
has been taken in the matter hence present writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. From perusal of the records, the Court is of the prima facie opinion
that no decision has been taken upon the pending representation of
the petitioner pursuant to the judgement and order dated 09.11.2017.

6. In my considered view, it is a continuing cause of action to file
contempt against non compliance of direction of this Court dated
09.11.2017 if representation has remained undecided till date.

7. Accordingly, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter. Liberty
rests with the petitioner to apply contempt before appropriate forum, if
so advised.

8. In view of the same, writ petition is dismissed.

(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 5, 2026
Pramod Tripathi

Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…