Shyam Bihari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Krishi Vipnan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Vibhag and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 586 of 2026

Shyam Bihari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Krishi Vipnan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Vibhag And 4 Others

¶7

es yapar ag n	ers	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rajiv Singh	Srivastava, Avadhesh	Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Singh	Rajesh Kumar, Surendra	Kumar

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Sri Rajesh Kumar, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5, and the same is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5, Mr. Prakhar Nigam, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.

¶12

Instant writ petition has been filed with following prayers:-

¶13

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider and allow the petitioner the conversion of pay from 4th pay to 5th and 6th pay and allow all the benefits of salary as per admissible in law considering the services of the deponent in regular scale of pay for the post.

¶14

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay to the petitioner, all the arrears of salary with interest of 12% per annum.

¶15

(iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in circumstances of the case;

¶16

(iv) To allow the writ petition with all costs in favor of the petitioner."

¶17

The contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been retired in year 2022 from the post of Peon and the retiral dues have been paid, but the same has not been paid as per the

¶18

WRIA No. 586 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

recommendation of the 5th and 6th pay commissions. He submitted that the controversy has already been settled in Writ A No. 614 of 2020 which was challenged subsequently in Special Appeal No. 116 of 2025 and thereafter, in SLP NO. 17710 of 2025. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of recommendation of 5th and 6th pay commissions so far as his payment of retiral dues is concerned.

¶21

After argument at length, he submits that the petitioner has moved representation before the respondent no. 2 on 08.12.2025 which is still pending consideration and the interest would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the same, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶23

Be that as it may, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent no. 2/Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. Kishan Mandi Bhawan, Lucknow, is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner which has been raised before him on 08.12.2025, within period of 6 weeks, in accordance with law, from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties.

¶25

January 21, 2026

¶26

Mayank

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyam Bihari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Krishi Vipnan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Vibhag and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Bihari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Krishi Vipnan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Vibhag 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

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Susheel and 29 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Karuna Singh @ Smt Karuna Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Dr. Bhagchand Chhaba and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agricultural Education and Research Lko. and 4 Others

Budhiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Edu. and Research Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Prem Prakash Yadav vs U.O.I Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications New Delhi and 2 Others