Sudhir Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sudhir Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the writ petitioner to file a comprehensive representation with self-attested copy of the writ petition before respondent No.4 - District Probation Officer, District Basti (receipt by 12.12.2025); the claim (honorarium of Rs.35,000/- vis-a-vis Rs.33,493/- paid) to be decided strictly in accordance with law within six weeks of presentation of the certified copy of the order, with transmission of papers to any other competent authority if respondent No.4 so opines.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner, engaged through an outsourcing agency, is entitled to honorarium of Rs.35,000/- instead of the Rs.33,493/- presently paid to him.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with a self-attested copy of the writ petition before respondent No.4 - District Probation Officer, District Basti (to be received by 12.12.2025), who shall decide the petitioner's claim strictly in accordance with law within six weeks from presentation of the certified copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

If respondent No.4 is of the opinion that the matter is to be decided by some other authority, the papers shall be transmitted to that authority.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J., December 2, 2025) in WRIT - A No. 17668 of 2025 (Sudhir Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others): The petitioner, engaged through an outsourcing agency and drawing honorarium of Rs.33,493/- against a claimed Rs.35,000/-, had earlier obtained an order dated 05.04.2025 in Writ-A No. 3493 of 2025 protecting his contractual continuance against disengagement upon fresh engagements for the post of Financial Literacy Specialist pursuant to the Director, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas Pushtahar's letter dated 31.01.2025. On the Standing Counsel's submission that the honorarium claim required determination at the first instance by respondent No.4, to which the petitioner's counsel had no objection, the Court disposed of the petition granting liberty to file a comprehensive representation with a self-attested copy of the writ petition before the District Probation Officer, District Basti (to be received by 12.12.2025), directing decision of the claim strictly in accordance with law within six weeks of presentation of the certified copy, with liberty to transmit the papers to any other competent authority if respondent No.4 so opines. No merits finding was rendered on the honorarium claim.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17668 of 2025

Sudhir Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Heard Sri Firdos Ahmad, Advocate (Advocate Roll No.A/F-0026/12) holding brief of Sri K. L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Gaya Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The writ petitioner herein had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.3493 of 2025 (Sudhir Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others), in which, on 05.04.2025, following order was passed:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Petitioner has raised apprehension that in view of the letter issued on 31st January, 2025 by the Director, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas Pushtahar, Government of U.P. Lucknow, petitioner who has already been engaged through outsourcing agency, may be disengaged.

In the considered view of the Court, any contract employment if has been offered to a person and he has been continuing as such the department cannot proceed to disengage him merely because certain more persons have been engaged.

In this view of the matter, therefore, I find that apprehension raised by the petitioner is ill found, however I may clarify that in the event respondent proceed to make engagement pursuant to the engagement of Financial Literacy Specialist under work for empowerment of women pursuant to the directions issued by the Director, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas Pushtahar, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow dated 31st January, 2025, petitioners continuance on contract basis may not be disturbed.

However, liberty always rests with the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and petitioner always has liberty to

WRIA No. 17668 of 2025

2

approach this Court again as and when any order is passed against him.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of."

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is being paid honorarium to the tune of Rs.33,493/- in place of Rs.35,000/-.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs determination at the first instance by the respondent No.4.

To such a submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the selfattested copy of the writ petition before the respondent No.4- District Probation Officer, District Basti, who shall on the receipt of the same by 12.12.2025, proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. In case the respondent No.4 is of the opinion that the matter is to be decided by some other authorities then the papers shall be transmitted to the same.

December 2, 2025 R.S. Tiwari

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad