Formatting Practice Test 02 FREE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2025

Anil Kumar Sharma, Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Respondents

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the competent authority to decide his pending representation concerning correction of his service record and grant of consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, the relevant documents were submitted before the department within the prescribed period, but the matter has remained undecided.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an incorrect entry was made in the service record while the petitioner was posted at the district office. The petitioner noticed the discrepancy when his documents were examined for fixation of pay. He thereafter submitted a representation supported by appointment records, joining documents and other relevant papers. It is contended that despite reminders, the competent authority has neither accepted nor rejected the claim.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the representation requires verification from the original departmental record. He states that if the representation is complete in all respects, the authority concerned shall examine it and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the applicable rules.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record, this Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner can appropriately be examined by the competent administrative authority. At this stage, adjudication on the merits of the disputed claim is neither necessary nor desirable because the relevant record has first to be verified by the department.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion regarding entitlement of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent respondent authority to consider the pending representation, examine the supporting documents and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

The petitioner shall submit a fresh copy of his representation along with all documents on which he proposes to rely within fifteen days. Upon receipt thereof, the authority shall verify the record and, where necessary, provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to clarify any discrepancy noticed during examination.

If the authority finds that any additional document is required, the petitioner shall be informed in writing and reasonable time shall be granted for its submission. The proceedings shall not be kept pending merely on account of an avoidable procedural formality.

Any benefit found legally admissible after such examination shall be processed by the department without unnecessary delay. Conversely, if the claim is rejected wholly or partly, the order shall briefly record the reasons so that the petitioner may understand the basis of the decision.

The Court expects both sides to cooperate in timely disposal of the matter. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner without any further delay.

No order as to costs.

Order Date: 22 September 2025

Judge