Munna Lal and 18 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Munna Lal and 18 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No final relief on the mandamus prayer; interim directions only — Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate, Badaun) directed to file personal affidavit within ten days showing cause why action should not be taken against him for giving wrong information to the State-Government; matter to be listed and connected with Writ A No.13209 of 2024 on 21.05.2026 immediately after the fresh cases, with learned Standing Counsel to assist the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding Respondent No.1 (State of U.P.) to pass appropriate orders granting relaxation of age to the petitioners for consideration of their cases for regularization on the post of Collection Amin, on the basis of the District Magistrate, Budaun's letter dated 30.05.2025 and the Government Order dated 30.05.2008. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie view recorded that the petitioners are not legally entitled to the benefit since the Government Order dated 30.05.2008 has already been cancelled by the subsequent Government Order dated 30.10.2017 (sentence commences at para 19 and continues at para 22 after the running-head/page-number interruption at paras 20-21); being expressly a prima facie opinion, it is provisional and not a final determination.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2, the District Magistrate, Badaun, is directed to file his personal affidavit showing cause why action should not be taken against him for giving wrong information to the State-Government in order to provide certain benefits to the petitioners.

Key takeaways

The personal affidavit is to be filed within a period of ten days from the date of the order.ratio¶23
The matter is to be listed and connected along-with Writ A No.13209 of 2024 on 21.05.2026, immediately after the fresh cases, on which date Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, is to assist the Court.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.), interim order dated May 8, 2026 in Writ - A No. - 6688 of 2026, Munna Lal and 18 others v. State of U.P. and another — Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus commanding Respondent No.1 (State of U.P.) to pass orders granting relaxation of age for consideration of their cases for regularization on the post of Collection Amin, on the basis of a letter dated 30.05.2025 sent by the District Magistrate, Budaun (Respondent No.2) to the State Government recommending age-relaxation benefits pursuant to Government Order dated 30.05.2008. Counsel for the petitioners relied on Devki Nandan and others v. State of U.P. (2018 (7) ADJ 334); learned Standing Counsel relied on Devendra Nayak v. State of U.P. (2011 ADJ Online 0328) and State of U.P. v. Jaswant Kumar (Division Bench, 2018 (8) ADJ 246), and produced the subsequent Government Order dated 30.10.2017 cancelling the Government Order dated 30.05.2008. The Court, stating it was shocked and surprised that the District Magistrate had written the letter seeking benefits under a superseded Government Order, directed the District Magistrate, Badaun to file his personal affidavit within ten days showing cause why action should not be taken against him for giving wrong information to the State-Government to provide benefits to the petitioners; recorded a prima facie opinion that the petitioners were not legally entitled since the 2008 Government Order stood cancelled by the 2017 Government Order; and listed the matter connected with Writ A No.13209 of 2024 on 21.05.2026, with learned Standing Counsel to assist the Court. No final relief was granted; the three reported judgments were cited by counsel only and were not engaged with by the Court.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 6688 of 2026

Munna Lal And 18 Others

	Versus	.....Petitioner(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)		: Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s)		: C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Heard Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition interalia with the following prayer:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders relating to grant of relaxation in the age of petitioners on the basis of the letter dt. 30.05.2025 sent by the District Magistrate, Budaun (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) within some reasonable time as is fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

It is argued that for relaxation of age for consideration of the cases for regularization on the post of Collection Amin, a letter dated 30.05.2025 was written by the District Magistrate, Badaun/ Respondent No.2 to the State Government / Respondent No.1 by which a reply has been given in respect of certain information sought for by the State-Government.

In the aforesaid letter, a reference has been made by the Respondent No.2 to provide the benefit of age relaxation in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the Government Order

WRIA No. 6688 of 2026

2

dated 30.05.2008.

Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Devki Nandan and others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2018 (7) ADJ page 334.

In response to the same, Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Devendra Nayak and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011 ADJ Online 0328 as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Jaswant Kumar and another reported in 2018 (8) ADJ 246 .

It is further argued that Government Order of which a reference has been made by the Respondent No.2 namely Government Order dated 30.05.2008 has already been cancelled by the State-Government vide its subsequent Government Order dated 30.10.2017, copy of which has been placed by Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel before this Court, the same is taken on record.

After going through the aforesaid Government Order namely 30.10.2017, the Court is very much shocked and surprised that under what circumstances, the letter in question has been written by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.1 for the grant of benefits of the Government Order dated 30.05.2008 which has already been superseded by the State Government vide Government Order dated 30.10.2017.

In this view of the matter, the Respondent No.2 namely District Magistrate, Badaun is directed to file his personal affidavit that why the action should not be taken against him for giving wrong information to the State-Government only in order to provide certain benefits to the petitioners. Though in the prima facie opinion of the Court for which they are not legally entitled since the Government Order dated 30.05.2008

WRIA No. 6688 of 2026

3

has already been cancelled by the subsequent Government Order dated 30.10.2017.

The aforesaid affidavit be filed within a period of ten days from today.

List and connect along-with Writ A No.13209 of 2024 on

21.05.2026 immediately after the fresh cases.

On the said date, Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel will assist the Court.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

May 8, 2026

Swati

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