Dismissed

Santosh Kumar v. the State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025WRIA/16098/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A municipal employee sought mandamus for driver/operator remuneration from 1995/1998 and second Saturday and Sunday allowances from 2013. On objection regarding delay and lack of explanation, the court dismissed the petition; after dictation, counsel sought withdrawal, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a better petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a better petition.

Santosh Kumar vs the State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 16098 of 2025

¶3

Santosh Kumar

¶4

	Versus .....Pe	titioner(s)
The State Of U.P. And Another	.....Res	pondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Aditya Prakash Verma, Verma, Shailesh Verma	Ranjana
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,	C.S.C.

¶5

Court No. - 52

¶6

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

The present petition has been filed with the following prayer :-

¶9

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and grant him remuneration for the work of Driver/Operator discharged by him from 1995/1998 in the respondent Nagar Nigam and also direct the payment of Second Saturday and Sunday allowances to the petitioner from 18.03.2013 (i.e. from when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Safai Nayak) as per Rules (Annexure no. 8) with all consequential benefits and interest."

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent no.2 raises objection that the petitioner has claimed remuneration for the work of driver/operator discharged by him from 1995/1998. He further contends that nothing has been mentioned in the petition about the delay in filing the petition by the petitioner.

¶11

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶12

After the aforesaid order was dictated by the Court, learned counsel for

¶13

WRIA No. 16098 of 2025

¶14

¶15

the petitioner prays to withdraw the petition with the liberty to file a better petition.

¶16

Accordingly the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶17

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶18

October 31, 2025

¶19

Kalp Nath Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumar v. the State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. the State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Pratap Singh vs Union of India and 4 Others

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

Yogendra Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Zaki Tariq and 17 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Kalpana Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shishpal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others