Allahabad High Court
SHIV KUMAR MALIversusREGIONAL MANAGER RAJYA BHANDAR NIGAM LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager, as the matter requires determination by the competent authority.
Summary
The petitioner, Shiv Kumar Mali, filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of his services with the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation. The respondents argued that the issue required factual determination by the competent authority and that the petitioner’s status—whether on the corporation’s rolls or a contractual employee—must be ascertained. They suggested that the matter be decided by the Regional Manager and offered no objection to the court directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The court found that keeping the petition pending served no useful purpose and disposed of it without addressing the merits, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within three weeks and for the Regional Manager to decide it within three months. The order was issued on May 18, 2026, by Justice Dinesh Pathak.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can adjudicate the petitioner’s claim for regularisation of services or must refer the matter to the competent administrative authority (Regional Manager) for factual determination
Subjects
- regularisation
- service regularisation
- writ petition
- administrative law
- representation
- expeditious disposal
- regional manager
- U.P. State Warehousing Corporation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7411 of 2026
Shiv Kumar Mali
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Regional Manager Rajya Bhandar Nigam Lucknow And
Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sangita Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bal Mukund Singh
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Sangita Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bal
Mukund Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the U.P. State Warehousing
Corporation (respondent nos. 1 and 2).
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation for regularisation
of his services has not been decided till date.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter requires
factual determination, as per the applicable law, by the competent authority
in the first instance, and that the claim of the petitioner needs to be
ascertained as to whether he was appointed by the Corporation on its rolls or
was a contractual employee engaged through a contractor. However, he
fairly contends that the claim of the petitioner for regularization is liable to
be considered and decided by the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1), and he has no objection if a
direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be
moved by the present petitioner within such stipulated period, as may be
directed by this Court.
4. 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 present petitioner to move a
fresh representation before the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1) to ventilate his grievances, as
raised in this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with
a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ
WRIA No. 7411 of 2026
2
petition, who, in turn, 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 same, if there is no any other legal impediment.
5. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
May 18, 2026
vkg
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…