Sri Uma Shankar Yadav (S.I. , Pno - 892520655) and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025)

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31235

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5856 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sri Uma Shankar Yadav (S.I. , Pno - 892520655) And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Singh,Himanshu Deepak,Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel for State-respondents.

¶8

Upon a query being made by the court regarding the jurisdiction to entertain the petition for petitioner No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that any cause of action has accrued so as to entertain the writ petition for the petitioner No.1 within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh qua the petitioner No.1.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 submits that controversy involved in the present petition has already been settled at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari & others vs. State of U.P. & others). He has drawn attention of the court towards the order passed in Writ-A No.14282 of 2021 (Ram Jeet Tiwari and 6 others vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 6 others) where the Hon'ble Single Judge relying on the judgment passed in Ghanshyam Tiwari (supra) has allowed the writ petition and respondents were directed to count the training period and petition was disposed of with a direction that petitioners' claim for grant of additional increment shall be considered within a period of three months after treating training period for the purpose of grant of such benefit. The order dated 10.11.2021 passed in Writ-A No.14282 of 2021 is extracted below:-

¶10

"Controversy raised in the present petition has already been adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari & others vs. State of U.P. & others) against which a special appeal and S.L.P. have already been rejected. Order dated 07.09.2012 passed in aforesaid writ petition reads as under :-

¶11

"The sole grievance raised of the petitioners in the present petition is as to whether the period spent on training prior to appointment as a Constable in the Police Department can be counted for granting them promotional pay scale.

¶12

I have heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

This issue was examined by this Court in Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006 and the petition was allowed with the following observations:-

¶14

"Thus, for the reasons stated above, the respondents are not justified in not counting the period spent in training for the purposes of calculating 24 years of service for grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to count the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting second promotional pay scale."

¶15

Thus, for the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2009 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006, this petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The respondents shall count the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting additional increment."

¶16

Following the order passed in the aforesaid matter, this writ petition is also disposed of with the direction that the petitioners' claim for grant of additional increment shall be considered within a period of three months after treating training period for the purposes of grant of such benefit. "

¶17

Against the order dated 10.11.2021 passed in Writ-A No.14282 of 2021, special appeal was filed by the State Government bearing Special Appeal No.172 of 2023 (State of U.P. and 6 others vs. Ram Jeet Tiwari (H.Con.) and 6 others) along with 2 other connect special appeals which were also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.04.2023.

¶18

Against that SLP was filed by the State i.e. SLP No.15968 of 2023 and the same was also came to be dismissed thus, the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge has attained finality.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 prays that petitioner No.2 may also be granted the benefit of the order passed in the case of Ghanshaym Tiwari (supra).

¶20

Learned standing counsel though has opposed the petition vehemently however, could not deny the fact that the order

¶21

passed in Writ-A No.14282 of 2021 (supra) has attained finality.

¶22

In view of above, this petition is also disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the claim of petitioner No.2 for grant of additional increment in light of the judgment of Ghanshyam Tiwari (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Uma Shankar Yadav (S.I. , Pno - 892520655) and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Uma Shankar Yadav (S.I. , Pno - 892520655) and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilasha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Nikhil Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 2 Others

Shoaib Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Brijesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko