Vijay Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1635 of 2026

Vijay Kumar Tripathi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Lko. And 4 Others	Education Deptt.	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pt. S. Chandra,	Vivek Nishad
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶10

Notices to the respondent nos. 4 & 5 are hereby dispensed with as the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶11

Present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:-

¶12

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite party Director to take decision on recommendation of Principal dated 20.07.2021, which is submitted in pursuant to letter of Director dated 02.06.2021, as contain in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite parties not to create any obstruction in working and functioning of petitioner as librarian and extend all benefits of service.

¶14

(iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner."

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Librarian and working since last 19 years but he has not been paid salary and the matter went up to the Director, Higher Education and on 2.6.2021, a letter was written to the Principal of the

¶16

WRIA No. 1635 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

College to submit report, whereafter the Principal submitted report on 20.7.2021, but the petitioner is still waiting for the decision taken. He submits that interest of justice would be sub served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to move fresh representation before the respondent no.1 within fifteen days and the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶19

Learned counsels for the respondents have no objection to the submission aforesaid.

¶20

Be that as it may, without entering into merits of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to move fresh representation before the respondent no.2/Director, Higher Education Department, U.P. Prayagraj, within fifteen days and in case such representation is moved, the respondent no.2 is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks.

¶21

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

¶22

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶23

February 16, 2026 Ram Murti

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lko. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Dixit vs State Bank of India Nariman Point Mumbai Thru. Chairman

S.K. Kakkar vs Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board Lko. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Dwivedi and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mukesh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Manish Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another