Allahabad High Court
WRIA/13227/2025 of RAJANI KANT SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS on 14 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13227 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to the order dated
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 13227 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, 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 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. Grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow, whereby the claim petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of maintainability.
3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted a punishment vide order dated 10.07.2023, against which he filed a departmental appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, who rejected the same by the order dated 05.09.2023. Against the order dated 05.09.2023 the petitioner moved an application under Rule 25 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules 1991'), which was rejected, and thereafter the petitioner had preferred a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, which has been rejected on the ground of maintainability.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, but, on the other hand, does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner that the petitioner still has a remedy under Rule 23 of the Rules 1991. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajani Kant Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. In the light of above, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a revision under Rule 23 of the Rules 1991. In case, the same is preferred within next 2 weeks, the revisional authority shall consider and decide the same with expedition, say within next 6 months, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner forthwith. November 14, 2025 A.Nigam WRIA No. 13227 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench