Disposed

Smt. Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025WRIA/18504/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for quashing an order and directing payment of deducted amounts. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the court directed the petitioner to exercise the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within three weeks.

Smt. Sunita Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 18504 of 2025

¶2

Smt. Sunita Sharma

¶3

.....Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brajesh Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Jitendra Sarin

¶5

Court No. - 52

¶6

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Sri R.S. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jitendra Sarin, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondentState.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

¶9

"i) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2023 passed by Managing Director Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd./Respondent No.2 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition) and direct the respondents to pay the deducted amount of Rs. 167262/alongwith interest @ 10% P.A. to the petitioner within specific period.

¶10

ii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the deducted amount of Rs. 167262/- alongwith interest @ 10% P.A. to the petitioner within specific period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

iv) award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

¶13

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3 submits that against the impugned order, there is an alternative remedy of filing appeal available to the petitioner before the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow.

¶14

On the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner requests

¶15

WRIA No. 18504 of 2025

¶16

¶17

that some time may be granted for the filing of the appeal.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e. Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order and, if any such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall decide the same, on merits, ignoring the delay if any, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶19

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶20

December 16, 2025

¶21

Jitendra/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Rajan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Dimple Singh and 12 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tej Bahadur Singh vs Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Vijendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Siddha Narayan Yadav vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and 3 Others