Disposed¶15

Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Interim order – WRIT

Allahabad HC1 May 2025WRIA/4242/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unpaid salary arrears; mandamus for remittance of dues detailed at serial no 9, List-A, Annexure-8, with interest @ 12% p.a.; 23 months' dues claimed as partly unpaid per supplementary affidavit with Union Bank of India statement (account no. 586502010000576, 01.01.2021-22.04.2025); earlier writ Writ-A No. 6896 of 2022 disposed 18.10.2022 with liberty for fresh representation; alleged non-compliance with contempt court direction dated 27.01.2025 in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 29 of 2023; counter affidavit within three weeks, rejoinder within one week; listed fresh for week commencing 07.07.2025; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.; interim order, no final relief granted.

What the court decided

Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4242 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. Of U.P., Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravin Kumar Verma,Vibhu Shankar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeeva Kumar Sinha

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vibhu Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Kumar Misha, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 and 4.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:-

¶8

"Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding opposite parties to remit the unpaid salary to the petitioner as specifically detailed at serial no 9 of the List-A, Annexure-8 along with interest @ 12% p.a. as early as possible preferably within two weeks or in the time frame as this Hon'ble Court may provide in the interest of justice."

¶9

Attention has been drawn towards the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner enclosing therewith the true copy of the statement of bank account no. 586502010000576 of the petitioner of Union Bank of India from January 1, 2021 up to April 22, 2025 showing that some dues have been paid to the petitioner but entire dues admissible to the petitioner for the period of 23 months have not been given to the petitioner and recital to this effect has been given in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

Notable, the earlier writ petition, Writ-A No. 6896 of 2022 was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2022 giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation and on such representation, the admissible dues of the petitioner may be paid.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that even the direction being issued by the contempt court vide order dated 27.01.2025 passed in contempt application (civil) no. 29 of 2023 has not been complied with in its letter and spirits.

¶12

Matter requires consideration.

¶13

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks.

¶14

Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a period of one week.

¶15

List in the week commencing 07.07.2025, as fresh.

¶16

It is needless to say that if in the meantime, the opposite parties pay the dues to the petitioner, the details thereof may be indicated in the counter affidavit.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Anurag

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anup Kumar Shukla vs Union of India Ministry of Railways New Delhi Represented by Its Secy. and 3 Others

Kishori @ Kishori Yadav vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Javed @ Saddam @ Sonu @ Saddam Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Balbeer Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav vs U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Thru. Chairman, 14, Ashok Marg Shakti Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.