Chhaya Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 15595 of 2025

¶3

Chhaya Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Dileep Chandra Mishra, Sagar Saxena, Sahdev Singh : C.S.C., Harshit Pandey

¶6

Court No. - 52

¶7

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harshit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶10

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to allow the petitioner for performing her duty from 01.10.2025 at the institution by the Principal till 31.03.2026 in the light of the government order no.13/2015/1164/15-7-2015/1(29)/2014 of U.P. Government dated 12.06.2015, which has provided benefit of session who are retiring mid session as the petitioner has retired on 30.09.2025."

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as non-permanent Assistant Teacher at Higher Secondary School, Kakadev (Nagar Nigam Balika Inter College) on fixed pay scale vide order dated 07.07.1997, from 07.07.1997 till 14.05.1998. After approval of the selection committee the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Music) at Gandhi Sangeet Vidyalaya managed by Nagar Nigam on the basis of seniority in OBC category. Thereafter, on the basis of five years continuous service, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Music) by respondent no.3 vide order dated 27.05.2005 and thereafter her services were made permanent. The petitioner was to retire on 30.09.2025, therefore, as per Government order dated 12.06.2015, for session benefits, she had moved an application as required two months prior to her retirement i.e. 30.07.2025 but no attention has been paid on the application of the petitioner. When the petitioner was not permitted to continue nor provided session benefits and neither her application was considered, she approached this Court by means

¶12

WRIA No. 15595 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

of filing the present petition seeking a direction upon respondent no.3 to allow the petitioner performing her duty continuously as she has been restrained from performing her duty from 01.10.2025 at the Institution.

¶15

4. Mr. Harshit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the Government order dated 12.06.2015 is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

¶16

5. In view of above, mandamus is issued to the respondent no.3, Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, to allow the petitioner to work up to 31.03.2026, in the light of Government order dated 12.06.2015, which has provided session benefits to those who are retiring in mid session.

¶17

6. Learned counsel for the respondents shall immediately inform the respondents authorities to permit the petitioner to join her duties at the earliest.

¶18

7. The petitioner may also approach before the respondent no.3 along with certified copy of this order for necessary compliance.

¶19

8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶20

October 17, 2025 Rahul.

¶21

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhaya Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhaya Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases