Disposed¶18

Mahendra Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026WRIA/2136/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim order; Mahendra Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation; WRIT - A No. 2136 of 2026; fresh enquiry into 2012 incident; judgment dated 9.9.2025 in Writ-A No. 14886 of 2022 (Arvind Singh); two options - fresh inquiry or fresh contract; judgment dated 14.7.2025 protecting similarly placed employees (misconduct within last one or two years); clarification/review before learned Single Judge; matter listed 12.3.2026.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahendra Tiwari vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2136 of 2026

Mahendra Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhawesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sheo Ram Singh

¶9

Court No. - 34

¶10

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the judgment dated 9.9.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 14886 of 2022 (Arvind Singh Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others) respondents have initiated fresh enquiry proceedings in respect of an incident which has occurred in the year 2012. Paragraph no. 14 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

" 14. The Court also takes note of rival submissions on the issue of arbitration clause. Though at this stage Court is of the opinion that petitioners have challenged the order of termination directly before this Court but otherwise also respondents have not shows any instances where arbitration clause was actually acted upon. Therefore, at this stage to consider the rival submissions to the extent that whether arbitration clause is valid or not, would not be appropriate and petitioners will have a liberty to challenge the same as and when situation so warrants as well as if the case was not referred or referred to arbitration it would make no difference since the Court is of the opinion that in such cases where impugned orders being stigmatic and passed without giving any opportunity whatsoever, as required by Circular dated 27.04.2023, are liable to be set aside. However, the respondents will have two options, i.e., either to conduct inquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing or to permit the petitioners to execute fresh contract and at that stage it will be incumbent on respondents to clarify all conditions mentioned in contract and it is upto the petitioners to accept it or not or to take any legal remedy, as available in accordance with

¶13

WRIA No. 2136 of 2026

¶14

¶15

law. "

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that judgment dated 9.9.2025 provides two options to the respondents either to proceed afresh in the enquiry or execute fresh contract. The respondents have proceeded for holding fresh enquiry. Confronted with the situation as to the fact that fresh enquiry has been accorded in pursuance to the judgment dated 9.9.2025 although the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that similarly placed persons have been protected by judgment dated 14.7.2025 that those employees who have committed misconduct in last one or two years employer has been granted liberty to hold enquiry afresh. The similar finding has to be read in the order dated 9.9.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that judgment dated 9.9.2025 does not contain such stipulation.

¶17

Confronted with such stipulation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted time to approach learned Single Judge for clarification/review of the earlier order dated 9.9.2025.

¶18

List this case on 12.3.2026 as fresh.

¶19

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶20

February 12, 2026 VMA

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahendra Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kashinath Patel vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shashibhushan Shukla vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ansar Ahmad-I vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Lucknow and 2 Others

Deependra Singh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Harish Chandra vs Director Local Body U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others