Dr. Harshvardhan Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dr. Harshvardhan Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation with a self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent (identified in proceedings as the Director of Ayurveda Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow) by 12.12.2025; the second respondent to decide the salary claim for 18.01.2009–13.05.2009 strictly in accordance with law within two months of presentation of the certified copy of the order, transmitting the papers to another authority if it so opines.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Medical Officer appointed in erstwhile Uttarakhand who opted for Uttar Pradesh post-reorganisation, is entitled to salary for the attachment period 18.01.2009 to 13.05.2009, given the respondents' position that he did not work during that period versus his claim that he had worked. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

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 the second respondent, to be received by 12.12.2025.

Key takeaways

On receipt of the representation by 12.12.2025, the second respondent is to decide the petitioner's claim strictly in accordance with law within two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.ratio¶19
If the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter is to be decided by some other authority, the papers shall be transmitted to that authority.ratio¶19
The order was passed without seeking any response from the respondents and must not be construed as an expression that the Court has gone into the merits of the case; the merits remain expressly open for decision by the competent authority.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.), WRIT - A No. - 17841 of 2025, Dr. Harshvardhan Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, decided 26 November 2025. Petitioner, a Medical Officer appointed in erstwhile Uttarakhand (then part of Uttar Pradesh) who opted for Uttar Pradesh post-reorganisation, claimed salary for the attachment period 18.01.2009 to 13.05.2009, which was withheld on the ground that he had not worked. The Court disposed of the writ petition without entering into merits and without calling for respondents' response, granting liberty to file a comprehensive representation with a self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, Director of Ayurveda Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, by 12.12.2025; the said authority to decide the claim strictly in accordance with law within two months of presentation of the certified copy of the order, with power to transmit the papers to any other competent authority. The order expressly records that it is not an expression on the merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17841 of 2025

Dr. Harshvardhan Sharma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Jitdendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Heard Sri Jitdendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Staterespondents.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Medical Officer in erstwhile Uttranchal which was the part of State of Uttar Pradesh and post re-organization, he opted for Uttar Pradesh and during the period from 18.01.2009 to 13.05.2009 when he was attached, he was not accorded any salary for the said period on the ground that the writ petitioner has not worked. Conversely, the claim of the writ petitioner is that he had already worked and he is entitled to salary.

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs adjudication at the first instance by the second respondent, Director of Ayurveda Department, Government of U.P. at Lucknow.

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 off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the selfattested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall on the receipt of the same by 12.12.2025, proceed to decide the claim of the

WRIA No. 17841 of 2025

2

petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. In case the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter is to be decided by some other authorities then the papers shall be transmitted to the same.

Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off .

November 26, 2025

A. Prajapati

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad