Disposed¶19

Smt. Snehlata Chaturvedi v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2025WRIA/13195/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Snehlata Chaturvedi v. State of U.P.; WRIT-A No. 13195 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Chandra Dhari Singh, J.; salary arrears; regular pay; mandamus; representation dated 07-12-2024; fresh representation; Director Harijan and Social Welfare Department; respondent no.2; eight weeks; time-bound direction; disposed of without entering merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without entering into merits; petitioner permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2 (Director, Harijan and Social Welfare Department) within 10 days of production of the certified copy of the order, and respondent no.2 directed to decide it in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of receipt. ¶19

Smt. Snehlata Chaturvedi vs State of U.P and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents can be commanded, by way of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to pay the arrears of salary and regularly pay the salary in compliance of the order and representation dated 07-12-2024 (Annexure No. 6). +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merits of the case, the Court allowed the petitioner's innocuous prayer, as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents made no objection.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation along with the writ petition and a certified copy of the order before respondent no.2 within 10 days from the date of production of the certified copy.ratio¶18
Respondent no.2, the Director, Harijan and Social Welfare Department, was directed to decide the fresh representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving it.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.), WRIT - A No. 13195 of 2025, decided September 4, 2025 — Smt. Snehlata Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. & 3 others. Petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary and regularly pay salary in compliance of an order and representation dated 07-12-2024 (Annexure No. 6) was disposed of without entering into merits, on an 'innocuous prayer' to which the State's Standing Counsel raised no objection: petitioner directed to file a fresh representation, with the writ petition and certified copy of the order, before respondent no.2 (Director, Harijan and Social Welfare Department) within 10 days of production of the certified copy; respondent no.2 directed to decide the representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of receiving it. The substantive entitlement to salary arrears was left undecided.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13195 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Snehlata Chaturvedi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P And 3 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Om Prakash .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 32

¶9

HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

¶10

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following main prayer:-

¶11

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary and regular pay the salary in compliance of order and representation dated 07-12-2024 Annexure no 6 to this writ petition."

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner without entering into merits of the case, made an innocuous prayer that the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2 and a direction may be issued to him to decide the same in time bound manner.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition on merits, but has not opposed the innocuous prayer as made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appeared on advance accepted notice on behalf of the State-respondents, perused the contents made in the writ petition and the documents on record.

¶15

Without entering into merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as no objection made on behalf of learned Standing counsel

¶16

WRIA No. 13195 of 2025

¶17

¶18

appearing on behalf of State-respondents. Petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation along with present writ petition as well as certified copy of this order before respondent no.2 within 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. After receiving the said representation, respondent no.2, Director Harijan and Social Welfare Department is directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving of the said representation.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶20

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶21

September 4, 2025 Atul

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Snehlata Chaturvedi v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Snehlata Chaturvedi v. State of U.P 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shalini Dubey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M S.D. Ayurvedic Pharmacy College G.T. Road vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Sunita Rana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Committee of Management, Madarsa Rasheedul Uloom, Saraiya Varanasi and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amit Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amitesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others