Sarita Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Tripathi and Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, 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

" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to continue with the employment of petitioner as District Social Audit Coordinator and to pay her salary as was done in past, as is admissible to her. "

¶14

It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.10.2009 petitioner was appointed on the post of District Social Audit Coordinator vide order dated 12.08.2010, copy of which is appended as annexure-6 to the writ petition, on contractual basis for a period of one year on fixed emoluments of Rs.12,000/- along-with traveling allowances of Rs.3,000/-. It is stated in the aforesaid letter of appointment that petitioner should fill up an agreement form and appointment be only for a period of one year. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid petitioner continued to work since 2010 at least for 15 years and in the meanwhile, she

¶15

WRIA No. 6699 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

developed disability in her eyes as she developed visual impairment and therefore, on 13.08.2025 a notice was issued by the District Development Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, that petitioner may get herself medically examined. It is further argued that no extension was granted to the petitioner after 01.04.2026 though the other similarly situated persons were granted extension. In the regard he placed reliance upon a legal opinion dated 17.12.2025 given by District Legal Service Authority, Sant Kabir Nagar, copy of which is appended as annexure-12 to the writ petition.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon Rule 20 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is argued that after the respondents stopped the petitioner from working, a representation was submitted by the petitioner. It is further argued that petitioner should be permitted to work on the post in question even after 30.04.2026 taking into the consideration legal opinion dated 17.12.2025 read with Rule 20 of the Act, 2016.

¶19

On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that in case petitioner will submit a representation ventilating all his grievances before the appointing authority of the petitioner namely respondent no.4-District Development Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, he will consider and decide the same expeditiously.

¶20

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.4 along-with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.4 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks.

¶22

WRIA No. 6699 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

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

¶25

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 fourth respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law holding the field.

¶26

May 5, 2026

¶27

Pramod Tripathi

¶28

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶29

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

Sarita Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Pandey 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

Shiv Shankar Richhariya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vipin Kumar Rathore Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mathura Prasad Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others