Rajeev Kumar Srivastav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajeev Kumar Srivastav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty/direction to petitioners to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.1 within two weeks; respondent no.1 to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and relevant rules, considering the judgment dated 19.08.1992, within six weeks of submission along with certified copy of the order. Merits not decided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a mandamus commanding their regularization with consequential benefits (time scale, ACP, arrears of salary, pension) pursuant to the judgment dated 19.08.1992 in W.P. No. 6384/SS/1989.

Court's answer

With consent of parties, the petitioners were permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.1 (Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Department, Lucknow); if such representation is submitted within two weeks, respondent no.1 shall endeavour to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the relevant rules, considering the judgment of the Court dated 19.08.1992, within six weeks of submission of the representation along with certified copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly clarified that it has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioners; the disposal is confined to the direction to consider the representation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin, J.) — WRIT - A No. 6078 of 2025, decided 19.8.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:48552). Petitioners sought mandamus commanding regularization with consequential benefits (time scale, ACP, arrears of salary, pension) on the strength of the judgment dated 19.08.1992 in W.P. No. 6384/SS/1989 (Vijay Kumar Srivastav and others v. State of U.P.), contending the said judgment had attained finality but benefits had not been extended. With the consent of counsel, the Court declined to enter into merits and disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.1 (Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Department, Lucknow) within two weeks; respondent no.1 was directed to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the relevant rules, considering the 1992 judgment, within six weeks of submission along with certified copy of the order. The Court expressly recorded that it had not gone into the merits of the claim.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48552

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6078 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Shailesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Sankalp Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularize the petitioners within nine month from date of judgement dated 19.08.1992 passed in WP No. 6384/SS/1989, Vijay Kumar Srivastav ors. v/s State of U.P. ors along with all consequential benefit such as time scale, ACP, regularisation with all consequential benefit including arrears of difference of salary as well as regarding pension etc."

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the judgement and order dated 19.08.1992 has attained finality yet entire benefits as due to the petitioners have not been extended to them till date.

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.1 i.e. Principal

Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Department, Lucknow which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned counsels for the respondents have no objection.

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submit a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.1 then respondent no.1 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the relevant rules as well as considering the judgement of this Court dated 19.08.1992 within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioners.

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 J. K. Dinkar

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench