Allahabad High Court
PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without reaching the merits, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager and to have it decided within a stipulated period.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Gupta, a contractual conductor with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTS), filed a writ petition seeking mandamus orders directing the corporation to consider his representations dated 11‑12‑2024 and 25‑03‑2025, provide financial assistance for medical treatment, assign light‑duty work due to a 40% disability, and grant service benefits. He alleged that despite repeated requests, the corporation had neither assigned light duty nor decided on his representations. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Regional Manager of UPSRTS in Lucknow and offered no objection to a fresh representation being filed. The Court observed that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose and therefore disposed of the writ petition without addressing the merits, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager within three weeks and to have it decided within three months. The order thus refrains from issuing any mandamus and leaves the substantive reliefs to be considered by the administrative authority. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue mandamus directing the State Road Transport Corporation to consider the petitioner's representations and provide financial assistance, alternative employment, and service benefits.
- Whether the petition should be disposed of without adjudicating the merits and the petitioner directed to approach the Regional Manager for redress.
Subjects
- mandamus
- public service employment
- disability
- representation
- service benefits
- administrative law
- contractual employee
- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6905 of 2026
Pankaj Kumar Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Naresh Nigam
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sheo Ram Singh
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4, learned Standing Counsel
representing State-respondent and perused the record on board.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking following reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondent no.3 to consider and decide the representation(s) of the Petitioner dated
11.12.2024 and reminder(s) dated 25.03.2025, within a stipulated period, in
accordance with law.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to provide adequate financial assistance to the Petitioner for his medical
treatment, including the surgery of his left hand.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to provide suitable alternative employment/light duty to the Petitioner in
view of his 40% disability, till completion of his treatment.
IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to grant such service benefits/compensation as may be admissible to the
Petitioner for the injuries sustained during the course of employment."
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is serving in UPSRTS on the post of
contractual conductor. However, due to an accident, it has become
difficult for him to discharge his duties, therefore, he has moved
WRIA No. 6905 of 2026
2
representation seeking assignment of light duty. Despite repeated request
made by the petitioner, neither have light duties been assigned to him nor
has the representation submitted by him been decided by the authorities
concerned.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has contended
that the grievance of the present petitioner can be more appropriately
redressed by the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation Tedi Kothi, Lucknow (Respondent No. 3) and he has no
objection, in case, a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh
representation to be moved by the petitioner within such stipulated period
as may be directed by this Court.
5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any
observation on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to
move a fresh representation before the Regional Manager, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation Tedi Kothi, Lucknow (Respondent No. 3), to
ventilate his grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a
period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order
and a self attested copy of the present writ petition, and, in turn, he shall
consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production
of the such representation.
6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
May 7, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…