Allahabad High Court
WRIA/12626/2026 of SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Vs THE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 8 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12626 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents and perused the record on board. 2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 12626 of 2026
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents and perused the record on board.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: "i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay remaining retiral dues of petitioner those are (1) The amount of gratuity (2) remaining salary of suspension period from 27.02.2020 to 23.07.2021 (3) benefits of third ACP from 25.11.2018 to 31.01.2026 (4) further bonus from 2019-20, 2020-21, 2024-25 with interest as fixed by the Hon'ble Court within specific period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court.
ii. A direction may be given to respondent no. 2 to decide representations dated 05.02.2026, 06.07.2026 and 14.07.2026 duly received by office of respondent no. 2 by speaking and reasoned order within specific period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
iii. Suitable directions, orders or writs in addition to and/or in substitution of what has been prayed above as may be found expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has contended that the grievance of the present petitioner raised in the instant writ petition can be more appropriately redressed by the Municipal Commissioner (respondent No. 2), and that they have no objection, in case, a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be moved by the petitioner within such stipulated period as may be directed by this Court. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbrat Dwivedi, Shakti Shanker Tiwari, Subhash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vineet Sankalp Santosh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Municipal Commissioner (respondent No. 2), to ventilate his grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the present writ petition, and, in turn, he shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of such representation.
5. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of. October 9, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 12626 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad