Disposed¶18

Shyam Sunder Prajapati and 2 Others v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025WRIA/17555/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

One increment; academic session 2016-17; non-payment of increment; representation; District Basic Education Officer Mahoba; Secretary U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Prayagraj; letter dated 15.01.2025; Annexure No.6; time sought to seek instructions deprecated by Court; notice served 11.11.2025; instructions to be filed by 03.12.2025; listing fresh 03.12.2025; WRIT - A No. 17555 of 2025; Prakash Padia, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; interim/adjournment order; State of UP respondents.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: time granted to Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, till 03.12.2025 to place instructions before the Court together with any order passed by respondent No.2 pursuant to the letter dated 15.01.2025; matter to be put up as fresh on 03.12.2025. No merits decided. ¶18

Shyam Sunder Prajapati and 2 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17555 of 2025

¶3

Shyam Sunder Prajapati And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Up And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anant Prakash, Ram Raj Prajapati Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manvendra Singh

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners in the present petition is that though the petitioners are entitled for one increment for the academic session 2016-17 but the same has not been paid to them. Hence the present petition.

¶12

From perusal of the record, it transpires that on the representation made by the petitioners in this regard, a letter dated 15.01.2025 was written by the District Basic Education Officer, Mahoba/respondent No.4 to the respondent No.2/Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj, copy of the same is appended as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

¶13

When a query was made by this Court regarding outcome of the aforesaid letter, a prayer has been made by Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos2, 4 & 5 to grant some time to seek Instructions.

¶14

It is unfortunate that despite the fact that notices has been served upon the counsel for the respondents before filing of the writ petition, in the present case, notice was served on 11.11.2025, it is usual practice that as and when the matter is taken up, in place of submitting any Instructions/reply on behalf of the respondents, only prayer has been made to grant some time to seek Instructions in the matter. This prayer has been depreciated by this Court from to time.

¶15

In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is granted time till

¶16

WRIA No. 17555 of 2025

¶17

¶18

03.12.2025 to place the Instructions before this Court and also place the order, if any, passed by the respondent No.2 pursuant to the letter dated 15.01.2025 written by the respondent No.4.

¶19

Put up as fresh on 03.12.2025.

¶20

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶21

November 21, 2025

¶22

saqlain

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Sunder Prajapati and 2 Others v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Prajapati and 2 Others v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dileep Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Abdul Raheem vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jabiullah vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Viranchi Arora vs State of U.P. and 3 Others