Dismissed¶15

Ramdarash Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIA/6620/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - A No. 6620 of 2026, decided May 5, 2026, Prakash Padia, J. — Chaukidar engaged through offer letter of private service provider (IT World, Sultanpur); claim for salary/honorarium against District Probation Officer, Azamgarh; writ petition against service provider/private person held not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; remedy lies under common law; petition dismissed with liberty to pursue common law remedy.

What did the court decide?

No relief on merits; the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the common law remedy. ¶15

Ramdarash Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 6620 of 2026

Ramdarash Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Saurabh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with prayer to direct the Respondent No.3 namely District Probation Officer, Azamgarh to pay salary/ honorarium to the petitioner in lieu of performing his duty as Chaukidar.

¶12

From perusal of the facts as narrated in the writ petition it appears that petitioner was given offer dated 12.11.2025 under signature of Respondent No.4 namely Authorized Secretary, IT World, B-8, Super Market, Sultanpur. It is argued that pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioner is working in the office of the District Probation Officer, Azamgarh but he is not getting his salary.

¶13

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

From perusal of the record, it is clear that petitioner was given an offer letter by the Respondent No.4 who is a service provider. It is settled law that writ petition against the service provider / private person is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and appropriate remedy lies under the common law.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the common law remedy.

¶16

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶17

May 5, 2026

¶18

Swati

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramdarash Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdarash Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra @ Subhash Chandra Shakya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Babu Verma vs State of Up and 2 Others

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

Jyoti Singh Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Deepak Ahirawar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bachchu Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others