Rabindra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2025/12106/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for service benefits from 1994 appointment; court directs representation to Board of Revenue for decision in eight weeks considering Patap Narain Pandey and Jag Prasad Chaubey precedents.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation before Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow; direction to authority to decide representation within eight weeks by reasoned speaking order in light of cited judgments. ¶¶11-¶12

Rabindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 12106 of 2025

Rabindra Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief And 3 Others	Secy.	Revenue Deptt. Lko.	..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Shikha Srivastava, Kalhans, Yogesh Ku	Suneel mar	Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.
Court No.- 7

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶9

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to authority concerned to consider petitioner's claim for providing the entire service benefits treating the initial appointment on 11.02.1994 as substantive and for granting of promotion and pay scales with effect from 11.02.1994 along with consequential benefits.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in Patap Narain Pandey v. State of U.P. & others [Writ Petition No.4031(S/S) of 2001] as well as decision in State of U.P. and others v. Jag Prasad Chaubey rendered in Special Appeal No.191 of 2024.

¶11

Since considering petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioner to file fresh representation before opposite party no.2 i.e. Chairman, Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow. In case such a representation is filed, the same is required to be decided by authority concerned expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from receipt of representation of petitioner along with a certified copy of this order in the light of aforesaid decisions, in case the same are applicable upon petitioner.

¶12

With aforesaid direction, the petition stands finally disposed of.

¶13

October 14, 2025 lakshman

¶14

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rabindra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Devlpt. Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Aaditya Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Briksh Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Anupama vs State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow And 3 Others

Prabhu Nath Chaubey vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow and 3 Others

Gopi Nath Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 2 Others