Dhananjay Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2026WRIA/5462/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; reinstatement in service; pending application dated 16.01.2026 before respondent no. 2; fresh representation to be filed within three weeks; decision directed within six weeks; ex parte disposal without expressing merits; independent consideration in accordance with law; WRIT - A No. 5462 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Prakash Padia, J.; Dhananjay Yadav v. State of U.P.; disposed of finally.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within three weeks; on such representation being made, the respondent concerned to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks. ¶¶21

Dhananjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. +1 more

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent concerned, along with certified copy of the order, photo-copy of the earlier representation and all relevant papers and documents, within a period of three weeks.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

If such a fresh representation is made, the respondent concerned is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks.ratio¶¶20
Since the writ petition was decided on an ex parte version without seeking any response from the respondents, the order is not to be construed as an expression that the Court has gone into the merits of the matter; the concerned respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Dhananjay Yadav against the State of U.P. and others, which sought mandamus for reinstatement in service and for decision of the petitioner's application dated 16.01.2026 pending before respondent no. 2. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating all grievances, with certified copy of the order and photo-copy of the earlier representation annexing all relevant papers and documents, within three weeks; if such representation was made, the respondent concerned was directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks. The Court clarified that, the petition having been decided on an ex parte version without any response from the respondents, the order does not express any view on the merits and the respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5462 of 2026

Dhananjay Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rajesh, Sunil Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶13

"1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

¶14

2. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the application moved by the petitioner dated 16.01.2026, pending before him, within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶15

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that though a considerable time has lapsed but till date no decision has been taken in the matter.

¶16

On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that in case petitioner will submit a fresh representation in this regard the authority concerned will decide the same expeditiously.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent concerned along-with certified copy of this order and photo-copy of the earlier representation annexing all the relevant papers and documents

¶18

WRIA No. 5462 of 2026

¶19

¶20

within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent concerned is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks.

¶21

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

¶22

Since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte version without seeking any response from the respondents, thus passing of the order today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter and the concerned respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law holding the field.

¶23

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶24

April 17, 2026 Pramod Tripathi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhananjay Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Smt. Dulari Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tarif Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Ram vs State of U.P. and 4 Others