Disposed¶18

Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2026WRIA/2136/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. (Addl. Chief Secy., Horticulture and Food Processing Deptt.) and others — WRIT - A No. 2136 of 2026, Lucknow Bench, Manish Mathur, J., February 24, 2026 — claim for minimum of pay-scale per 7th Pay Commission recommendation; petition disposed of without examining merits; liberty to file fresh representation before competent authority; decision mandated within eight weeks of certified copy; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority, which shall decide it within eight weeks of production of a certified copy of this order. ¶18

Shailesh Kumar 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. - 2136 of 2026

Shailesh Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

Evam Food Processing Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Nand Shukla, Umeshwar Pratap Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 7

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned
State counsel for opposite parties.

¶11

2. The present petition has been filed seeking the
following main reliefs:-

¶12

"1.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 petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶13

[II] Issue such other order or direction, which
this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper under
the facts and circumstances of the case, in
favour of the petitioner."

¶14

3. Since consideration of petitioner's grievance
would entail factual aspects, without entering into
merits of the case, liberty is granted to
petitioner to file a fresh representation before
competent authority. In case such a representation
is filed, the same shall be decided within a period
of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of

¶15

WRIA No. 2136 of 2026

¶16

¶17

this order is produced before the said authority.

¶18

4. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.

¶19

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶20

February 24, 2026

¶21

Subodh/-

¶22

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

Shailesh Kumar 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?

Shailesh Kumar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Rubi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Gaurav Pandey, Si Pno. 152766915 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Surya Bhan Giri vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Chandrashekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jhabbu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mahendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another