Disposed¶23

Ravindr Kumar Alias Ravindra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. of Envi. Forest, Climate Change Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2026WRIA/1134/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 1134 of 2026; forest department employee; minimum of regular pay scale; Rs. 18,000 versus Rs. 5,226 per month; State of U.P. v. Putti Lal (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595; Sabha Shankar Dubey v. D.F.O. (2019) 12 SCC 297; DFO Ambedkar Nagar; fresh representation; mandamus; disposed of without entering merits; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; February 3, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move a fresh representation within 15 days; respondent no. 3 (Divisional Forest Officer, Ambedkar Nagar) directed to consider and decide the representation within six weeks in accordance with law. No monetary relief granted at this stage. ¶23

Ravindr Kumar Alias Ravindra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. of Envi. Forest, Climate Change Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are to be directed by mandamus to pay the petitioner Rs. 18,000/- per month as minimum of regular pay scale in place of Rs. 5,226/- per month pursuant to the orders dated 20.03.2023 and 05.04.2023, in compliance with the Supreme Court judgments in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal and Sabha Shankar Dubey v. D.F.O. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits of the case, the Court permitted the petitioner to move a fresh representation before respondent no. 3 within a period of 15 days.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

If such representation is moved within the stipulated 15 days, respondent no. 3, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ambedkar Nagar Forest Division, is directed to consider and decide it within a further period of six weeks, in accordance with law, from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT-A (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; February 3, 2026): Petitioner, invoking Supreme Court judgments in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal [(2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595] and Sabha Shankar Dubey v. D.F.O. [(2019) 12 SCC 297], sought mandamus for payment of Rs. 18,000/- per month as minimum of regular pay scale in place of Rs. 5,226/- per month pursuant to the State Government order dated 20.03.2023 and respondent no. 2's order dated 05.04.2023, and restraint against oral removal for filing the writ. After argument, counsel confined the request to liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 3, to which the State had no objection. Without entering into the merits, the Court permitted a fresh representation within 15 days and directed respondent no. 3, Divisional Forest Officer, Ambedkar Nagar Forest Division, to consider and decide it within a further six weeks in accordance with law upon production of a certified copy of the order; petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1134 of 2026

¶3

Ravindr Kumar Alias Ravindra Kumar Srivastava

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. Of Envi. Forest, Climate Change Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prabhu Sharan, Divyani Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. Notice to the other respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶12

Instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶13

"[1] issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the responderts to pay to the petitioner Rs. 18,000/-per month as minimum of regular pay scale in place of Rs.5,226/- per month pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2023 issued by the State Government and the order dated 05.04.2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 2 & 3 to this writ petition) in compliance of the judgment dated 21.02.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998 State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal [(2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595] and judgment dated 14.11.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018 Sabha Shankar Dubey Vs. D.F.O. and others [(2019) 12 SCC 297] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court;

¶14

[2] issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS restraining the respondents from removing the petitioner orally for presentation of the present writ petition;

¶15

[3] issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶16

WRIA No. 1134 of 2026

¶17

¶18

¶19

[4] award costs of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner."

¶20

After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 and he may be directed to consider & decide the same, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶22

Be that as it may, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation within period of 15 days, and if such representation is moved within aforesaid period, the respondent no. 3/ Divisional Forest Officer Ambedkar Nagar, Forest Division, Ambedkar Nagar is hereby directed to consider and decide the same, within further period of six weeks, in accordance with law, from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶25

February 3, 2026

¶26

Raj

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravindr Kumar Alias Ravindra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. of Envi. Forest, Climate Change Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindr Kumar Alias Ravindra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. of Envi. Forest, Climate Change Lko. and 2 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

Poonam Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Deeksha Shukla vs the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Deepti Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Dev Nath Tiwari and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Baddri Prasad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 4 Others

Rajrani Alias Rani Devi vs Pension Director, Pension Directorate , U.P. , Lucknow and 2 Others