SARITA PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   WRIT - A No. - 6699 of 2026

Sarita Pandey
                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Ajay Tripathi, Ram Kumar
                                 Dubey, Shivam Tiwari, Sr.
                                 Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Ajay Tripathi and Sri Ram Kumar Dubey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia
with the following prayer:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to continue with the employment
of petitioner as District Social Audit Coordinator and to pay
her salary as was done in past, as is admissible to her."

3. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that pursuant to the
Government Order dated 14.10.2009 petitioner was appointed
on the post of District Social Audit Coordinator vide order
dated 12.08.2010, copy of which is appended as annexure-6 to
the writ petition, on contractual basis for a period of one year
on fixed emoluments of Rs.12,000/- along-with traveling
allowances of Rs.3,000/-. It is stated in the aforesaid letter of
appointment that petitioner should fill up an agreement form
and appointment be only for a period of one year. It is stated
that pursuant to the aforesaid petitioner continued to work
since 2010 at least for 15 years and in the meanwhile, she
                                                  WRIA No. 6699 of 2026
                          2


developed disability in her eyes as she developed visual
impairment and therefore, on 13.08.2025 a notice was issued
by the District Development Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, that
petitioner may get herself medically examined. It is further
argued that no extension was granted to the petitioner after
01.04.2026 though the other similarly situated persons were
granted extension. In the regard he placed reliance upon a legal
opinion dated 17.12.2025 given by District Legal Service
Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar, copy of which is appended as
annexure-12 to the writ petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon Rule 20
of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is argued
that after the respondents stopped the petitioner from working,
a representation was submitted by the petitioner. It is further
argued that petitioner should be permitted to work on the post
in question even after 30.04.2026 taking into the consideration
legal opinion dated 17.12.2025 read with Rule 20 of the Act,
2016.

5. On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel
that in case petitioner will submit a representation ventilating
all his grievances before the appointing authority of the
petitioner namely respondent no.4-District Development
Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, he will consider and decide the
same expeditiously.

6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ
petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

7. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to
submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances
before the respondent no.4 along-with certified copy of this
order within a period of three weeks from today. If such a
representation is made, the respondent no.4 is directed to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law within a further
period of four weeks.
                                                                                          WRIA No. 6699 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                        8. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is
                                        disposed of finally.

                                        9. Since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte
                                        version without seeking any response from the respondents,
                                        thus passing of the order today may not be construed to an
                                        expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter
                                        and the fourth respondent shall accord independent
                                        consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate
                                        of law holding the field.

                                        May 5, 2026
                                        Pramod Tripathi

                                                                                     (Prakash Padia,J.)




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