Disposed¶12

H.C. Satish Kumar Pandey and 46 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025WRIA/17569/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional increment of pay; completion of 19 years of service; Sub Inspector; Uttar Pradesh State Police; Article 226 writ; Ghanshyam Tiwari (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012); Virendra Kumar (Writ - A No. 48601 of 2015); Radhe Shyam Yadav (Writ - A No. 6753 of 2023); direction to consider individual representation within two weeks; petition disposed of; WRIT - A No. 17569 of 2025; decided November 21, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction that each petitioner move an individual representation with a certified copy of the order; the claim to be considered and disposed of in terms of Ghanshyam Tiwari by appropriate orders within two weeks of receipt of the fresh representation. ¶12

H.C. Satish Kumar Pandey and 46 Others vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, working as Sub Inspectors in the State Police, are entitled to an additional increment of pay on completion of 19 years of service in the light of the judgment in Ghanshyam Tiwari.

¶9

Court's answer

The petition stands disposed of with a direction that each petitioner move an individual representation along with a certified copy of the order, and upon such representation being made, the petitioners' claim shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the judgment of Ghanshyam Tiwari by passing appropriate orders within two weeks of receipt of the fresh representation.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by 47 petitioners working as Sub Inspectors in the U.P. State Police seeking an additional increment of pay on completion of 19 years of service, in the light of Ghanshyam Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012), which was followed in Virendra Kumar and another v. State of U.P. & 3 Others (Writ - A No. 48601 of 2015); the Special Appeal (Defective) No. 538 of 2016 against Virendra Kumar was dismissed on 07.09.2016 and Special Leave Petition CC 6316 of 2017 was dismissed on 03.04.2017. Counsel for the petitioners also placed before the Court a recent order in Radhe Shyam Yadav & 4 Others v. State of U.P. & 6 Others (Writ - A No. 6753 of 2023), and the learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the legal position. The Court disposed of the petition directing each petitioner to move an individual representation with a certified copy of the order, to be considered and disposed of in terms of Ghanshyam Tiwari by appropriate orders within two weeks of receipt of the fresh representation. Decided November 21, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17569 of 2025

¶3

H.C. Satish Kumar Pandey And 46 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Madan Mohan Lal : C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 34

¶7

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶9

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners who were working as Sub Inspector in State Police, want an additional increment of pay on completion of 19 years of service in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & others passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012 which was followed in the judgment of Virendra Kumar and another v. State of U.P. & 3 Others, Writ - A No. 48601 of 2015 against which Special Appeal (Defective) No. 538 of 2016 came to be dismissed on 07.09.2016 so also the Special Leave Petition CC 6316 of 2017 came to be dismissed on 03.04.2017.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that this legal position has remained intact as on date and many such employees as petitioners have been accorded benefit. He has also placed before the Court recent order of this Court passed in the case of Radhe Shyam Yadav & 4 Others v. State of U.P. & 6 Others, Writ - A No. 6753 of 2023.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid legal position.

¶12

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that each of the petitioners is required to move their individual representation along with the certified copy of this order and in the event representation is made, petitioners' claim shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the judgment of Ghanshyam Tiwari (supra) by passing appropriate orders within a period of two weeks of receipt of fresh representation.

¶13

November 21, 2025 Gurpreet Singh

¶14

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶15

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

H.C. Satish Kumar Pandey and 46 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.C. Satish Kumar Pandey and 46 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Syed Masroor Ali @ Raja vs Sri Naved Hamid Khan

Babloo Rai vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Mamta vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pramod Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others