Disposed¶21

Anoop Kumar Ahirwar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025WRIA/18919/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT - A No. 18919 of 2025; Anoop Kumar Ahirwar v. State of U.P. and Another; Vikas Budhwar, J.; December 16, 2025; Seasonal Collection Ameen; regularisation claim; engagement dated 22.01.1997; seniority list dated 16.06.2021; District Magistrate/Collector Lalitpur; liberty to file comprehensive representation; decision within two months; disposed of without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent (District Magistrate/Collector, Lalitpur), who shall decide the claim strictly in accordance with law within two months of presentation of the certified copy of the order, transmitting the papers to the appropriate authority if the matter lies elsewhere. ¶21

Anoop Kumar Ahirwar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner, engaged as Seasonal Collection Ameen on 22.01.1997, is entitled to be considered for regularisation as seasonal collection ameen, and whether the respondents should be directed to consider his claim.

¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The second respondent (District Magistrate/Collector, Lalitpur) shall, on receipt of the representation within two weeks, decide the petitioner's claim strictly in accordance with law within two months from presentation of the certified copy of the order; if of the opinion that the matter is to be decided by some other authorities, the papers shall be transmitted to the same.

¶16

Key takeaways

The writ petition was decided without seeking any response from the respondents, and the order is not to be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ - A No. 18919 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Vikas Budhwar, J., December 16, 2025): The petitioner, engaged as Seasonal Collection Ameen on 22.01.1997 and claiming entitlement to regularisation pursuant to a seniority list published on 16.06.2021, sought a direction to the respondents to consider his claim. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the claim required adjudication at the first instance by the second respondent, District Magistrate/Collector, Lalitpur, to which petitioner's counsel had no objection. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to file a comprehensive representation with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who was to decide the claim strictly in accordance with law within two months of presentation of the certified copy of the order, transmitting the papers to the appropriate authority if the matter fell to be decided elsewhere. The Court expressly clarified that the petition was decided without seeking any response from the respondents and without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 18919 of 2025

Anoop Kumar Ahirwar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Mishra (A/S 0617/2019) holding brief of Shri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

¶12

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was engaged as Seasonal Collection Ameen on 22.01.1997 and a seniority list came to be published on 16.06.2021, according to the writ petitioner, he is entitled to be considered for regularisation as seasonal conllection ameen and he has already represented his matter before the respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs adjudication at the first instance by the second respondent, District Magistrate/ Collector Lalitpur, District Lalitpur.

¶15

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

¶16

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 within two weeks, proceed to decide the claim of the 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

¶17

WRIA No. 18919 of 2025

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

December 16, 2025

¶23

A. Prajapati

¶24

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶25

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

Anoop Kumar Ahirwar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Ahirwar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nav Prayas and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Jiya Ram Verma vs Dr. Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Education, Ayodhya and Another

Rupendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Omveer Singh vs the State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others