Allahabad High Court
WRIA/15921/2026 of YOGESHWAR CHAUDHARY Vs STATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS on 29 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15921 of 2026 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith calculate and release the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15921 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. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith calculate and release the petitioner's admissible arrears arising out of the First ACP/financial upgradation, granted pursuant to Financial Upgradation Sanction Order dated 19.10.2024 and consequential letter dated 25.10.2024, along with consequential benefits;
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the salary payable to the petitioner for the sanctioned earned leave period from 01.03.2025 to 23.03.2025, in accordance with law and further direct the respondents to provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioner as admissible under law;
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period, and thereafter release the amounts found admissible to the petitioner;"
2. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as petitioner has already represented, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and it would be appropriate that respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.
3. In view of these facts, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Saurav Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Yogeshwar Chaudhary .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
decide the representation dated 13.02.2026 of the petitioner in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
4. It is made clear that this court has not examined the matter on merits and the order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. September 30, 2026 Nitika Sri. WRIA No. 15921 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad