Allahabad High Court
WRIA/13974/2026 of UDAI SHANKER SHUKLA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 28 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13974 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned advocate appear for petitioner. Mr. Khare submits, his client was appointed as
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13974 of 2026
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, 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. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned advocate appear for petitioner. Mr. Khare submits, his client was appointed as Assistant Teacher in year 1993. Her service was terminated on 12th May, 2015. She approached the Tribunal to challenge the termination. Her claim petition was registered and numbered as 1867 of 2015. It remained pending for eleven long years.
2. Under challenge is judgment dated 17th July, 2026 of the Tribunal rejecting the petition as not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on section 4(5) in U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976. The provision is reproduced below "Section 4: ..........(5) The Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit a reference unless it is satisfied that the public servant has availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules, regulations or contract as to redressal of grievances." Mr. Khare seeks interference on submission, in the meantime several writ petitions were filed involving same cause. They were allowed. This Court do interfere and grant the relief since, the termination was bad.
3. Mr. Piyush Shukla, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears for State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned advocate, for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, C.S.C. Udai Shanker Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
4. The Tribunal relied upon the provision to dismiss the claim petition as not maintainable. In our view, objection to maintainability should be dealt with at the earliest. The claim petition remained pending from year 2015 to find rejection by impugned judgment dated 17th July, 2026. In event the claim petition was taken up on the question of maintainability expeditiously and dealt with, petitioner could have availed all the remedies available to her under the relevant service rules. It is not an ordinary situation.
5. In the circumstances, we think it fit to interfere by setting aside impugned judgment and restoring the claim petition to the Tribunal. We will not ourselves interfere since, the Tribunal is equipped to consider the claim petition on facts as well as in law.
6. Mr. Khare seeks direction for expedition. Petitioner will forthwith communicate certified copy of this order to the Tribunal, for notice being issued on date of hearing. We request the Tribunal to deal with the claim petition as expeditiously as possible considering the delay and subsequent events of similar challenges dealt with in the meantime.
7. The writ petition is disposed of. September 29, 2026 Arif WRIA No. 13974 of 2026 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad