Disposed¶14

Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025WRIA/17261/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seasonal Collection Ameen (appointed 1992, served till 2025) convicted in a criminal case, enlarged on bail, denied permission to perform duty; Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.) disposed of writ petition on 18.11.2025 by directing representation before District Magistrate, Varanasi by 05.12.2025, with examination and appropriate order within three months; no statute or case cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation with a self attested copy of the petition and a certified copy of the order before respondent No.2 (District Magistrate, District Varanasi) by 5th December, 2025; the second respondent to examine and pass an appropriate order within three months, transmitting papers to another authority if considered necessary. ¶14

Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the grievance of the writ petitioner — appointed a Seasonal Collection Ameen in 1992, having worked up to 2025, convicted in a criminal case and enlarged on bail, yet not allowed to perform duty — can be addressed, with respondent No.2 (District Magistrate, District Varanasi) acting at the first instance.

¶12

Court's answer

Without further delving into the matter, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation, together with a self attested copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of this order, before the second respondent by 5th December, 2025.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The second respondent (District Magistrate, District Varanasi) shall thereupon examine the matter and pass appropriate order within a period of three months thereafter.

¶14

Key takeaways

If the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be addressed by some other authority, the papers are to be transmitted to that authority with due communication to the writ petitioner.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 34), Writ - A No. - 17261 of 2025, decided November 18, 2025 by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J. — Petitioner Vinod Kumar Srivastava, appointed a Seasonal Collection Ameen in 1992 and having worked up to 2025, submitted that though he was convicted in a criminal case and was enlarged on bail, he was not being allowed to perform duty. Learned Standing Counsel (Shri Vivek Singh) undertook that the grievance would be addressed at the first instance by respondent No.2, the District Magistrate, District Varanasi. Considering the submissions made across the Bar without further delving into the matter, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation, with a self attested copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of the order, before the second respondent by 5th December, 2025; the second respondent was to examine the matter and pass an appropriate order within three months, and, if of the opinion that some other authority should address the matter, to transmit the papers with due communication to the petitioner. No statute or precedent is cited in the judgment and no impugned order is identified.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17261 of 2025

¶3

Vinod Kumar Srivastava

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ankit Kapoor
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶11

1. Heard Shri Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri Vivek Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed a Seasonal Collection Ameen in the year 1992 and he worked up to 2025 and he is not allowed to perform duty though he was convicted in a criminal case and was enlarged on bail.

¶13

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the grievance of the writ petitioner shall be addressed at the first instance by the respondent No.2, District Magistrate, District Varanasi.

¶14

4. Considering the submissions made across the Bar without further delving into the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation along with a self attested copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of this order by 5th December, 2025 before the second respondent, who shall thereupon examine the matter and pass appropriate order within a period of three months thereafter. In case, the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be addressed by some other authority, papers be transmitted to the same with due communication to the writ petitioner.

¶15

November 18, 2025 Gurpreet Singh

¶16

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶17

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

Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Srivastava 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravesh Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and 3 Others

Azad vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Shashikant Saroj vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Krishna Kumar Kushwaha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijaypal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others