Disposed¶12

Motilal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026WRIA/1532/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motilal v. State of U.P.; WRIT - A No. 1532 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; decided February 12, 2026; mandamus for minimum of pay-scale per 7th Pay Commission recommendations; horticulture department employees; disposal with liberty for fresh representation before District Horticulture Officer, Unnao; reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation before opposite party No. 4 (District Horticulture Officer, Unnao, U.P.), which is to be decided by the authority concerned by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of the order. ¶12

Motilal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1532 of 2026

Motilal And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt., Lko. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Nand Pratap Pandey	Shukla, Umeshwar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No.- 7

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

¶9

2. Petition has been filed seeking following prayers:-

¶10

"[I] Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to pay the minimum of pay-scale according to recommendation of 7th pay commission to the petitioners, in the interest of justice. "

¶11

Since petitioner's grievances would require consideration of factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioner to make a fresh representation before opposite party No. 4 i.e. District Horticulture Officer, Unnao, U.P. In case such a representation is filed, the same is required to be decided by authority concerned by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation of petitioner along with a certified copy of this order.

¶12

The petition stands disposed of.

¶13

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶14

February 12, 2026

¶15

prabhat

¶16

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

Motilal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motilal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt., Lko. and 3 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

Similar cases

Kiran Prabha Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram Vikash Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Vikas Chand Yadav and 4 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy,. Health and Family Welfare Nirman Bhawan New Delhi and 3 Others

Rajesh Ram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prashashnik Sudhar ANUBHAG-1, Lucknow and 4 Others

Ram Fakir and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Saran Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gauri Shankar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others