Dismissed¶9

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Excise) Deptt. Lko. and Another v. Pingaksha Tripathi

Allahabad HC23 May 2025WRIA/5757/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UP Public Services Tribunal decision upheld; writ petition by State of U.P. (Excise Deptt., Lucknow Bench) against tribunal award of suspension-period salary arrears (minor punishment case) dismissed as meritless under Article 226; counsel for State failed to substantiate grounds; caution to State on disregarding legal opinions; judges: Attau Rahman Masoodi and Rajeev Singh; dated 23.5.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:30919-DB.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's view in allowing the claim petition stands, as the State's counsel was unable to substantiate the grounds urged contrary to it; consequently this Court is not convinced the writ petition deserves interference under Article 226, being bereft of merit, and it is dismissed. ¶9

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Excise) Deptt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition instituted by the State against the judgment/order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (allowing release of the difference of arrears of salary for the suspension period despite a minor punishment) deserves interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The grounds urged by the State contrary to the Tribunal's view could not be substantiated by its counsel before this Court.

¶8

Key takeaways

Caution struck for the State to adhere to legal opinions obtained in such matters; any venture without due application of mind coming to the notice of this Court shall henceforth be viewed seriously.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT-A No. 5757 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:30919-DB); High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Order Date 23.5.2025; bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. and Rajeev Singh, J. The State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary (Excise Department), Lucknow (and another), petitioned under Article 226 against a judgment/order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which had allowed the respondent Pingaksha Tripathi's claim petition seeking release of the difference of arrears of salary for his period of suspension, notwithstanding that he had been visited with only a minor punishment on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal had dealt with the specific pleas in light of the law referenced in paragraph 8 of its judgment. Finding the State's grounds incapable of substantiation, the bench held the writ petition bereft of merit and undeserving of interference, and dismissed it. A note of caution was struck directing the State to adhere to legal opinions obtained, failing which heedless ventures will be viewed seriously.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Excise) Deptt. Lko. and Another v. Pingaksha Tripathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Excise) Deptt. Lko. and Another v. Pingaksha Tripathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others vs Smt. Shakuntala

Manish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Environment Climate Change Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Kishori Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Deptt. Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Iqbal Ahmad vs Bar Council of U.P. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Apsar Miyan vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. and 3 Others