Sushil Kumar Sharma and 140 vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sushil Kumar Sharma and 140 vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondent-authorities (respondent No.3) to decide the petitioners' pending representation dated 10.1.2025 expeditiously, preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of the order, while considering the co-ordinate Bench order in Ghanshyam Tiwari (Writ-A No. 44330 of 2012, decided 7.9.2012). The substantive claim to one additional increment was not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the service period spent by the petitioners undergoing training before appointment as Constable is to be counted towards calculating 19 years of service for granting one additional increment according to the Circular dated 08.11.1965 and Government order dated 02.12.2000.

Ratio / Principle

The representation of the petitioners pending before respondent No.3 shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

While passing the order on the representation, the respondent-authorities shall consider the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari P.N.O. No. 890450086 and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.9.2012.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Sushil Kumar Sharma and other Constables seeking counting of the period spent in training before appointment as Constable towards 19 years of service for grant of one additional increment under the Circular dated 08.11.1965 and Government Order dated 02.12.2000. Their representation dated 10.1.2025 pending before respondent No.3 had not been decided. The Court directed that the representation be decided expeditiously, preferably within two months from production of a certified copy of the order, and that the authorities consider the co-ordinate Bench decision in Ghanshyam Tiwari (Writ-A No. 44330 of 2012, decided 7.9.2012). The substantive entitlement to the increment was left open for decision by the authorities.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49742

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2789 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Sharma And 140 Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - State.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

" A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondent-authorities to take into consideration the service period spent by the petitioners, while undergoing training before they were appointed as Constable for calculating 19 years of service for granting one additional increment according to the Circular dated 08.11.1965 and Government order dated 02.12.2000.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the respondent authorities to provide one additional increment after completion of the 19 years service to the petitioners according to the Government order dated 02.12.2000. "

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled for counting of service by including the period undergone in training for granting one additional increment to the petitioners. In this respect, the petitioners have filed a representation dated 10.1.2025, however, till date no order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the present matter is governed by order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari P.N.O. No. 890450086 and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.9.2012.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that representation of the petitioners would be decided in a time bound manner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that representation of the petitioners pending before respondent No.3 be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. While passing the order, the respondentauthorities shall consider the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari P.N.O. No. 890450086 and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.9.2012.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 VMA

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad