H.C. Mujeeburrahman And 161 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 May 2025
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that each of the petitioners is required to move their individual representation along with the certified copy of this order and in the event representation is made, petitioners' claim shall be…
Judgment
Petitioner :- H.C. Mujeeburrahman And 161 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Madan Mohan Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners who were working as Sub Inspector in State Police, want an additional increment of pay on completion of 19 years of service in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & others passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012 which was followed in the judgment of Virendra Kumar and another v. State of U.P. & 3 Others, Writ - A No. 48601 of 2015 against which Special Appeal (Defective) No. 538 of 2016 came to be dismissed on 07.09.2016 so also the Special Leave Petition CC 6316 of 2017 came to be dismissed on 03.04.2017.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that this legal position has remained intact as on date and many such employees as petitioners have been accorded benefit. He has also placed before the Court recent order of this Court passed in the case of Radhe Shyam Yadav & 4 Others v. State of U.P. & 6 Others, Writ - A No. 6753 of 2023.
Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid legal position.
Operative part
In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that each of the petitioners is required to move their individual representation along with the certified copy of this order and in the event representation is made, petitioners' claim shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the judgment of Ghanshyam Tiwari (supra) by passing appropriate orders within a period of two weeks of receipt of fresh representation. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Sanjeev SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 23 May 2025.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.