Disposed¶17

Avinash Vikram Singh and 385 Others v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2026WRIA/11566/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NHM contractual employees' writ seeking 5% annual honorarium increment after one year's service and loyalty bonus/service benefits under National Health Mission guidelines; Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench disposed of petition with liberty to file individual representations before District Health Committee (opposite party No.4), decision directed in accordance with law within six weeks; Manish Mathur, J.; January 6, 2026; WRIT - A No. 11566 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh individual representations to opposite party No.4 (District Health Committee), to be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously within six weeks from service of a certified copy of the order. ¶17

Avinash Vikram Singh and 385 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, employed under the National Health Mission, are entitled to a direction for payment of 5% annual increment/increase in honorarium upon completion of one year of service as required by the NHM guidelines/scheme. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file a fresh individual representation to opposite party No.4 for redressal of their grievance, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by opposite party No.4 or any other appropriate authority.

¶16

Key takeaways

The representation is to be decided expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon the authority concerned.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 7), Manish Mathur, J. — WRIT - A No. 11566 of 2025, Avinash Vikram Singh & 385 others v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & 4 others (January 6, 2026). Petitioners, engaged under the National Health Mission, sought a direction for payment of 5% annual increment/increase in honorarium upon satisfactory completion of one year of service as required by the NHM guidelines/scheme (counsel relied on paragraph 21 of the District Health Action Plan for Financial Year 2024-25), together with service benefits including loyalty bonus as and when due. Counsel for opposite party No.3 stated on instructions that such a decision fell to be taken by opposite party No.4, the District Health Committee. Without adjudicating entitlement, the Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file fresh individual representations to opposite party No.4, to be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously within six weeks from service of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 11566 of 2025

¶3

Avinash Vikram Singh And 385 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare New Delhi And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Puneet Chandra

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No.1, learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos.2, 4 & 5 and Mr. Pratham Harsh Chandra, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

¶11

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned to pay 5% annual increment/increase in honorarium of petitioners upon completion of one year service as required in the guidelines/scheme pertaining to National Health Mission. Further prayer for payment of service benefits including loyalty bonus in accordance with guidelines/scheme as and when same are due has also been sought.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioners has adverted to brochure pertaining to National Health Mission, District Health Action Plan for Financial Year 2024-25 and has adverted to paragraph - 21 thereof to submit that such an increment is admissible to such persons as the petitioners who have been employed under National Health Mission upon satisfactory completion of one year of service.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite party No.3, on the basis of instructions, submits that such a decision is required to be taken by opposite party No.4 which is the District Health Committee.

¶14

WRIA No. 11566 of 2025

¶15

¶16

In view of such submissions being made, liberty is granted to petitioners to file a fresh individual representation to opposite party No.4 for redressal of their grievance which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by opposite party No.4 or any other appropriate authority, expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the authority concerned.

¶17

6.With the aforesaid direction(s), petition stands disposed of .

¶18

January 6, 2026 lakshman

¶19

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avinash Vikram Singh and 385 Others v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Vikram Singh and 385 Others v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raghvendra Singh vs National Human Rights Commission New Delhi and 7 Others

Ganga Devi vs Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayti Raj and Another

Manoj Kumar Singh vs National Human Rights Commission New Delhi and 7 Others

Parvati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secdy. Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dinesh Chnadra Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Anubhag- 1, Lko. and Another