Indra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Indra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to press the pending revision before the competent authority; comprehensive representation with self-attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order to be produced by 17.10.2025; competent authority, on verification that the revision has been preferred and is on record, to decide it within two months. Merits of the 11.01.2010 order were not adjudicated by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.01.2010 (withholding of one increment on cumulative basis by the disciplinary authority/District Panchayat Raj Officer) should be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of, requiring the petitioner to press the revision before the competent authority, where the revision is stated to be pending.

Key takeaways

A comprehensive representation, along with self-attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order, is to be produced before the competent authority by 17.10.2025.ratio¶17
On verifying whether the revision has been preferred, if it is found to have been preferred and is available on record, the competent authority shall decide it within two months.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Writ-A No. 15206 of 2025, Vikas Budhwar J., decided 08.10.2025) — Indra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 others. Petitioner, initially appointed as a Class IV employee, sought quashing of the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority/District Panchayat Raj Officer withholding one increment on cumulative basis. His appeal was rejected on 07.02.2010; following a communication dated 29.08.2022 from the Addl. Director (Administration), Panchayat Raj, Uttar Pradesh, he claimed to have preferred a revision before the State Government (its date not mentioned in para-14 of the writ petition), which revision was statedly pending. The Court disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits of the 2010 order, directing the petitioner to press the pending revision before the competent authority, to produce a comprehensive representation with a self-attested copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of the order by 17.10.2025, and directing that, once the competent authority verifies that the revision has been preferred and is available on record, it shall be decided within two months. Statutory reference: Section 23, U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 15206 of 2025

Indra Pal Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Asar Mukhtar, Ikram Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Heard Sri Ikram Ahmad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was initially appointed as ClassIV employee, however, an order came to be passed on 11.01.2010 by the disciplinary authority/ District Panchayat Raj Officer, whereby one increment was withheld on cumulative basis against which, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be rejected on 07.02.2010 and thereafter on 29.08.2022, the Addl. Director (Administration), Panchayat Raj, Uttar Pradesh proceeded to issue a communication requiring the writ petitioner, if he is so aggrieved to prefer a representation / revision before the State Government, pursuant whereto the writ petitioner claims to have preferred a revision, the date whereof has not been mentioned in para-14 of the writ petition.

Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 11.01.2010.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, in case, the writ petitioner has preferred a revision under Section 23 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 before the State Government, then in case it has not been decide, would be decided.

Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the writ petition stands disposed of requiring the writ petitioner to press the revision before the competent authority, which is stated to be pending.

WRIA No. 15206 of 2025

2

For facilitation and early disposal, a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order be produced before the competent authority by 17.10.2025, and the competent authority on verifying the fact as to whether the revision has been preferred or not, in case revision has been preferred and it is available on record, then the same shall be decided within two months.

October 8, 2025

N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad