S.I. Raj Kumar, Pno - 112683160 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025)

The captioned writ petition has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 22.12.2015 so far as it restricts payment of stipend to petitioner during the training period after appointment on direct recruitment of petitioner on the post of SubInspector. Further prayer for payment of arrears of leave salary for the period of aforesaid training in addition to stipend has been sought.

¶12

It has been submitted that earlier similar petitions have been filed before this Court which was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 15.11.2019 where against Special Appeal No.169 of 2020 (Alok Kumar Singh & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Ors.) was filed and was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 08.09.2021. It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been clearly held that petitioners such as present petitioners who were appointed on direct recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector were entitled to leave salary for the period they underwent training after appointment with such leave salary being in addition to the stipend they were paid. The petitioners were also held entitled to the benefits of Government Order of 1965 followed by Circular of 1979.

¶13

It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment was thereafter challenged in Special Leave Petition No.798 of 2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2022.

¶14

Learned State counsel however submits that although undisputedly the aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court was upheld in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal but subsequently the State Government took a decision that the said benefits would be applicable only to the petitioners of the said petition and therefore petitioners are not entitled for the same.

¶15

WRIA No. 11205 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel as well as upon a reading of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.169 of 2020, it is quite evident that the aforesaid dispute has already been adjudicated upon by judgment and order dated 08.09.2021 passed in Special Appeal No.169 of 2020 which has been affirmed by dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal.

¶18

A perusal of pleadings made in the petition make it evident that petitioner's case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.09.2021 even with regard to challenge being raised to order dated 22.12.2015. The operative portion of order dated 08.09.2021 is as follows:-

¶19

"Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct the respondents to extend the benefit, as envisaged in the Government Order of 1965 followed by circular of 1979 which otherwise has been allowed by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 28.08.2019. The petitioners case would be considered in the light of the Government Order of 1965 followed by the circular of 1979 without being guided by the subsequent clarified order dated 22.12.2015. The said circular runs counter to the circular of the year 1979. Without its supersession, this cannot be applied. "

¶20

So far as submissions of learned State Counsel is concerned that benefit of the judgment would be applicable only to petitioners of the said petitions and appeals, it is quite evident from a reading of the judgment and order dated 08.09.2021 that no such restriction has been indicated by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. It is not for the State Government to sit in appeal over judgments rendered by Constitutional Courts and to restrict their operation in the manner in which it has been done.

¶21

Accordingly petitioner is found to be similarly placed and entitled to be granted benefit of the judgment and order dated 08.09.2021 and therefore the opposite parties are directed that petitioner's case would be considered in the light of Government Order/ Circular dated 16.09.1965 followed by the Circular dated 03.11.1979 regarding grant of leave salary ignoring the order dated 22.12.2015 since it runs contrary to the circular of year 1979.

¶22

Accordingly, petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶23

September 24, 2025 Renu/-

¶24

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

S.I. Raj Kumar, Pno - 112683160 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.I. Raj Kumar, Pno - 112683160 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 4 Others

Constable Driver (Cdr) , PNO-160470271, Bhuvnesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Siddharth Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Saryu Prasad @ Sarju Prasad @ Tilthoo Harijan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Juvenile a Thru. His Brother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Rekha Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.