Disposed

Prem Prakash Tripathi v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2025WRIA/18421/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued interim mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to open the sealed cover and issue promotional order to the petitioner as a District Development Officer, given that no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him on the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting. The court relied on the principle that the sealed cover procedure is inapplicable if no depar

What did the court decide?

Interim mandamus directing respondent to open sealed cover and issue promotional order or show cause.

Prem Prakash Tripathi vs the State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 18421 of 2025

¶3

Prem Prakash Tripathi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sr. Advocate, Tripathi Bhool Gaya Bhai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶12

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

¶13

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is working on the post of District Development Officer and his promotion was due. Accordingly, a DPC was held on 24.10.2025, in which name of petitioner was considered and he has been recommended for promotion on the post of Chief Development Officer, but when the order of promotion dated 14.11.2025 was passed, his name was not found place rather having the names of juniors to petitioner. Being confronted, petitioner was informed that vide order dated 04.11.2025, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and further charge sheet was issued on 17.11.2025, due to this reason, petitioner has not been issued promotional order and his name was kept in a sealed cover envelop.

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel firmly submitted that on the date of DPC, neither petitioner was suspended nor any inquiry was pending against him and charge sheet was issued only on 17.11.2025, therefore, disciplinary proceeding shall be treated to be initiated with effect from service of charge sheet. Therefore, based upon recommendation of DPC dated 24.10.2025, petitioner is fully entitled for issuance of promotional order. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankirama n; Civil Appeals Nos. 3018-

¶15

WRIA No. 18421 of 2025

¶16

¶17

21 of 1987, 3016 of 1988, 51-55 of 1990, 3093 of 1990, 4379 of 1990 and S.L.Ps. (C) Nos. 1094 of 1990, 2344 of 1990, 11680 of 1991, followed by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan ; JT 1998 (1) S.C. 622. He lastly submitted that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing respondent-authorities to open sealed cover envelop and issue promotional order to the petitioner on the post of Chief Development Officer.

¶18

Learned standing counsel though opposed but could not dispute the factual submissions made by counsel for petitioner.

¶19

I have considered rival submissions advanced by counsels for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.

¶20

Relevant paragraph nos. 5 & 6 of the judgment passed in Dr. (Smt.) Sudha (supra) are quoted below:-

¶21

"5. The Tribunal has found it as a fact that on the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee met to assess the case of the petitioner, she was neither under suspension nor was any charge sheet issued to her. The Tribunal, consequently, replying upon its own Full Bench decision as also a decision of this Court in New Ban of India v. N.P. Seghal & Anr. (Jt. 1991 (1) SC 498) allowed the Original Application and issued the directions noted above.

¶22

6. The question, however, stands concluded by a Three Judge decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. K.B. Jankiraman & Ors. JT 1991 (3) SC 527 in which the same view has been taken. We are in respectful agreement with the above decision. We are also of the opinion that if on the date on which the name of a person in considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the "sealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in a "sealed cover" only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or on its conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority. It is obvious that if the officer, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to."

¶23

Therefore, in light of such undisputed facts as well as settled positions of law, an interim mandamus is issued directing respondent no. 1 to open the

¶24

WRIA No. 18421 of 2025

¶25

¶26

sealed cover envelop forthwith and issue promotional order to the petitioner forthwith on the post of Chief Development Officer or show cause by filing counter affidavit.

¶27

Put up this case as fresh on 19.01.2026.

¶28

December 8, 2025 Sartaj

¶29

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Prakash Tripathi v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Prakash Tripathi v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar and 40 Others vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Setu Bhawan Thru. Managing Director and 5 Others

Siyaram Nagar and 21 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 11 Others

Ram Prakash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Gas Trade International vs State of Up and 2 Others

Computer Operator Grade-B /Assistant Sub Inspector Deepak Singh and Another vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Khushboo Singh vs State of U.P and 5 Others