Disposed¶15

Alka Agarwal v. the State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026WRIA/2990/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim parity/equal-treatment order; petitioner seeks same benefit as Shri Virendra Singh (Writ A No. 7891 of 2025, directions dated 13.08.2025, dues paid pursuant to compliance affidavit) in identical facts concerning Session Trial No. 878 of 2007; counter affidavit pending since order dated 18.03.2026; Allahabad High Court, Court No. 6; Writ - A No. 2990 of 2026; Alka Agarwal v. State of U.P.; Prakash Padia, J.; order dated April 2, 2026; listed 28.04.2026 after recess; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Matter adjourned, not finally disposed: two weeks' time to learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit or seek instructions on the parity claim; case to be listed on 28.04.2026, to be taken up after recess. ¶15

Alka Agarwal vs the State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2990 of 2026

Alka Agarwal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Arya Gautam,	Atipriya
	Gautam, Divya Advocate	Jyoti, Sr.
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

Vide order dated March 18, 2026, learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶12

It is argued that in identical facts and circumstances of the case in respect of Session Trial No.878 of 2007, Writ A No.7891 of 2025 was filed by one Shri Virendra Singh before this Court in which certain directions were given vide order dated 13.08.2025.

¶13

Pursuant to the aforesaid, a compliance affidavit has been filed before this Court and the entire dues has been paid to Shri Virendra Singh.

¶14

It is argued that since the controversy involved in the present case is identical, petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit as has been provided in favour of Shri Virendra Singh.

¶15

In this view of the matter, as prayed for by the learned Standing Counsel, two weeks' time is granted either to file the counter affidavit or in the alternative seek instructions that why the petitioner should not be granted the benefit as has been provided by the department itself in favour of Shri Virendra Singh.

¶16

WRIA No. 2990 of 2026

¶17

¶18