Abu Talah vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Abu Talah vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No merits adjudication. Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondent no.3, District Minority Welfare Officer, Chandauli, to decide the representation dated 28.2.2025 in accordance with law, preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of the order; respondent authorities to consider payment of the petitioner's salary; Court clarified it had not decided the issue on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to release and continue payment of the petitioner's salary withheld since the date of his joining, by writ of mandamus. +2 more

Court's answer

The respondent authorities shall consider payment of the petitioner's salary, the Court recording that there is no legal impediment in releasing the salary if the writ petition is pending (phrasing as in the judgment).

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no.3, the District Minority Welfare Officer, Chandauli, is directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated 28.2.2025 in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

This Court expressly did not decide the issue on merits; the authorities concerned must independently apply their minds and pass orders in accordance with law.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 6408 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; order dated 12.5.2025) - DISPOSED OF. Abu Talah, appointed on compassionate ground as Assistant Teacher (Alia), whose appointment was approved by order dated 28.6.2024 but whose appointment orders were put on hold from 9.7.2024 owing to pending writ petitions, prayed by mandamus for release of his salary from the date of joining, continued payment, and 12% interest on the withheld amount; a Registrar's order of 25.9.2024 had permitted salary payment where no writ petitions were pending, and the petitioner's representation dated 28.2.2025 had gone unanswered. The Court did not adjudicate the merits: it directed respondent no.3, the District Minority Welfare Officer, Chandauli, to decide the representation dated 28.2.2025 in accordance with law, preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of the order, asked the respondent authorities to consider payment of salary, noting (in the judgment's words) that there was 'no legal impediment in releasing the salary if the writ petition is pending', and expressly clarified that the issue had not been decided on merits, the authorities being left to independently apply their minds and pass orders in accordance with law. No statute or precedent was cited; the salary-arrears and 12%-interest claims were accordingly left to the administrative decision directed herein.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76485

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6408 of 2025

Petitioner :- Abu Talah Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mritunjay Mohan Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner from the date of his joining till today.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.3 to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioner forthwith and keep on paying the same as and when it falls due.

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay 12% interest on the amount which was illegally withheld by them."

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Teacher (Alia) and the aforesaid appointment was approved by order dated 28.6.2024. Subsequently on 9.7.2024, appointment orders were put to hold by the respondent-authorities as some writ petitions are pending consideration. Thereafter on 25.9.2024, an order has been passed by the Registrar permitting payment of salary, in respect of which, no writ petitions are pending. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in respect of appointment of petitioner, no writ petitions are pending and therefore, he is entitled for salary. In this respect, petitioner has filed representation dated 28.2.2025, however till date, no order has been passed.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that claim of petitioner would be decided in a time bound manner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby

provided that the respondent no.3-District Minority Welfare Officer, Chandauli shall decide the representation dated 28.2.2025 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Respondent authorities shall consider the payment of salary of the petitioner since there is no legal impediment in releasing the salary if the writ petition is pending.

It is clarified that this Court has not decided the issue on merits and the authorities concerned shall independently apply its mind and pass order in accordance with law.

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

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 D. Tamang

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad