Allahabad High Court
WRIA/16086/2026 of SURENDRA KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS on 30 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 16086 of 2026 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "i) issue a
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16086 of 2026
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, 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 for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.08.2026 (Ann-16) passed by respondent no. 3 and consequential order dated 22.08.2026 (Ann-17) passed by respondent no. 4.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work in Gram Panchayat Battupur as Rojgar Sewak and pay him hence forth honorarium month by month and also arrears honorarium due since month of April, 2025."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because of the election of his mother as Gram Pradhan, the petitioner who was working as Rojgar Sewak was liable to be shifted to other Gram Sabha in view of the Government Order issued by the State-Government. It has been further contended that recommendation has been made by the Block Development Officer on 14.11.2025 to the respondent no. 3 for approval for changing the place of working of the petitioner from Narayanpur to Battupur. The said recommendation is still pending and now by the order impugned, the respondents are taking action for removal of the petitioner.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has yet not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balram Jee Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta Surendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
been removed and only a direction has been issued to convene meeting of the Gram Sabha.
5. Since, Block Development Officer has recommended that change of place of working of the petitioner and has sought approval form respondent no. 3 by his letter dated 14.11.2025, it would be appropriate that respondent no. 3 shall take decision upon the matter referred to him by the Block Development Officer, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal impediment.
6. Till the disposal of the matter by respondent no. 3, the petitioner will not be removed from his post on which the petitioner is working.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. October 1, 2026 Ved Prakash WRIA No. 16086 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad