Smt Shikha Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 9299 of 2026
Smt Shikha Yadav and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jeeshan Ahmad Siddiqui,
Mohammed Iftekhar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
A.F.R.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohammed Iftekhar Farooqui along with Sri Jeeshan
Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel; and Sri Rajan Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
“i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
Quashing the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 (Letter
No.159/E.C.-2/2026) contained as (Annexure No.2) and the
impugned order dated 06/01/2026 issued by Respondent No.3,
whereby Petitioner No.1' and petitioner No.2 maternity leave
application was rejected
ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to immediately sanction and grant
maternity leave to Petitioner No.1 for 180 days from 19.01.2026
to 17.07.2026 and Petitioner No.2 for 180 days from 21.01.2026
to 20.07.2026, in accordance with law, along with all
consequential service benefits admissible under law as if they
were in continuous service during the said period.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners'
claim for the grant of maternity leave has been rejected on the basis of

2
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
the Government Order dated 08.12.2008, which is contrary to the
provisions of The Code on Social Security, 2020 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Code, 2020"). He further submits that the rejection of the claim
on the basis of the said Government Order, which provides that a second
spell of maternity leave cannot be granted within a period of two years
from the date of the last maternity leave availed, is patently illegal.
4. Since the question regarding the applicability of the Code, 2020, and
the ground raised by the petitioners are purely legal in nature, the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that he does not propose to file
a counter affidavit and is prepared to address the legal issue.
Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is
being decided at the admission stage itself.
Facts
5. The present writ petition has been filed by the two petitioners,
who claim an identical cause of action, namely, the rejection of their
applications for the grant of benefits under the Code, 2020, on the basis
of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008.
6. As far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, she is working as a
regularly appointed Staff Nurse/Nursing Officer under the Department of
Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh. She was earlier
granted 180 days' maternity leave from 29.01.2024 to 27.07.2024 by
Office Order dated 12.02.2024. Thereafter, she again conceived and
became pregnant with her second male child, whose expected date of
delivery was 12.01.2026. Accordingly, she submitted an application
dated 05.01.2026 seeking the grant of maternity leave from 19.01.2026
to 17.07.2026 (180 days). The said application has been rejected by the
impugned order dated 09.01.2026 issued by respondent No. 3, solely on
the ground that two years had not elapsed since the grant of the earlier
spell of maternity leave, relying upon the Government Order dated
08.12.2008 and Rule 153(1) of the U.P. Financial Handbook applicable
to the Department of Medical Education.

3
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
7. As far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she is also working as a
regularly appointed Staff Nurse/Nursing Officer under the Department of
Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh. She was granted 180
days' maternity leave from 15.01.2024 to 12.07.2024 by Office Order
dated 27.01.2024. Thereafter, she again became pregnant for the second
time and submitted an application dated 24.12.2025, seeking the grant of
maternity leave for 180 days with effect from 21.01.2026. However, the
said application was also rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated
06.01.2026, relying upon the Government Order dated 08.12.2008.
Issue
8. The question that arises for consideration is whether Rule 153(1)
of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in Financial
Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4, is applicable to a regular Government
servant, or whether, in the event of any inconsistency between the said
Rule and the provisions of the Code, 2020, being a Central enactment,
would prevail and govern the field under the constitutional scheme.
Petitioners’ Argument
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in
furtherance of the mandate contained in Article 42 of the Constitution of
India, the Parliament enacted the Code, 2020. On the other hand, the
provisions contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4
were framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and continue to
be applicable by virtue of Article 313 of the Constitution of India. He
submits that the provisions of the Financial Handbook, at best, have the
status of executive instructions and, therefore, must yield to the
provisions of the Code, 2020. For ready reference Article 42 of the
Constitution of India is reproduced herein below:-
“42. Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of
work and for maternity relief.”

4
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
10. He further submits that Section 161 of the Code, 2020,
categorically provides that the provisions of the said Code shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law, whether made before or after the coming into force of the
Code, 2020. For ready reference Section 161 of the Code, 2020 is
reproduced below:-
“161. Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Code.
—(1) The provisions of this Code shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force, or in the terms of any award,
agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the
coming into force of this Code:
Provided that where under any such award, agreement,
contract of service or otherwise, a person is entitled to benefits in
respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those
to which he would be entitled under this Code, the person shall
continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect
of that matter, notwithstanding that he is entitled to receive
benefits in respect of other matters under this Code.
(2) Nothing contained in this Code shall be construed to preclude
a person from entering into an agreement with his employer for
granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which
are more favourable to him than those to which he would be
entitled under this Code.”
11. It is further submitted that the Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide
Government Orders dated 08.12.2008 and 24.03.2009, earlier adopted
the decision of the Central Government along with the modifications
made by it. Thereafter, the State Government, vide Government Order
dated 11.04.2011, also adopted further modifications. However, the said
Government Orders were in reference to ‘The Maternity Benefit Act,
1961; and subsequently in order to simplify and rationalise the relevant
provisions, 9 Central Labour enactments relating to social security, the
th
Code, 2020 was enacted on 28 September 2020, with an object to
amend and consolidate the laws relating to social security with the goal
to extend social security to all employees and workers either in the
organised or unorganised or any other sectors and for matters connected

5
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
thereto. For ready reference, the Government Order dated 11.04.2011 is
reproduced below:
" ,
प्रेषक
, ,
वृन्दासरूप प्रमुखसचिव उ०प्र०शासन।
,
सेवामें
,
समस्तविभागाध्यक्षएवंप्रमुखकार्यालयाध्यक्ष उत्तरप्रदेश।
( ) -2 :
वित्त सामान्य अनुभाग लखनऊ
11 , 2011
दिनांक अप्रैल
-
विषयः महिलासरकारीसेवकोंकोबाल्यदेखभालअवकाशकीअनुमन्यता।
,
महोदय
- -2-2017/ -2008-216-79, 08-12-
उपर्युक्तविषयककार्यालयज्ञापसंख्या जी दस दिनांक
2008 -2-573/ -2008-216-79, 24-3-2009
तथाकार्यालयज्ञापसंख्याजी दस दिनांक द्वारा

प्रदेशकीमहिलासरकारीसेवकोंकोकेन्द्रसरकारकीमहिलाकर्मचारियोंकीभांति बाल्य

देखभालअवकाशकीसुविधाकतिपयशर्तोंकेअधीनप्रदानकीगयीथी।चूंकि भारतसरकार

द्वाराउक्तशर्तोंमेंकतिपयसंशोधनकिएगएहैंअतःसम्यक्विचारोपरान्तश्रीराज्यपालमहोदय

संदर्भगतशासनादेशोंमेंउल्लि खितशर्तोंकोनिम्नवत्संशोधितकरनेकीसहर्षस्वीकृति प्रदान
:-
करतेहैं
(1)
संबंधितमहिलाकर्मचारीकेअवकाशलेखेमेंउपार्जितअवकाशदेयहोतेहुएभीबाल्य

देखभालअवकाशअनुमन्यहोगा।
(2)
बाल्यदेखभालअवकाशकोएककलेण्डरवर्षकेदौरानतीनबारसेअधिकनहींदिया
जायेगा।
(3) 15
बाल्यदेखभालको दिनोंसेकमकेलिएनहींदियाजायेगा।
(4) ,
बाल्यदेखभालअवकाशकोसाधारणतयापरिवीक्षाअवधि केदौराननहींदियाजायेगा ऐसे

मामलोंकोछोड़करजहाँअवकाशदेनेवालाप्राधिकारीपरिवीक्षार्थीकीबाल्यदेखभालअवकाश

कीआवश्यकताकेबारेमेंपूर्णरूपसेसंतुष्टनहो।इसेभीसुनिश्चितकियाजायेगाकि परिवीक्षा
- -
अवधि केदौरानअवकाशदियाजारहाहैतोइसअवकाशकीअवधि कम से कमहो।
(5)
बाल्यदेखभालअवकाशकोअर्जितअवकाशकेसमानमानाजायेगाऔरउसीप्रकारसे

स्वीकृतकियाजायेगा।
2- 08.12.2008
यदि किसीमहिलाकर्मचारीद्वारादिनांक केकार्यालयज्ञापकेजारीहोनेके

पश्चातबाल्यदेखभालकेप्रयोजनहेतुअर्जितअवकाशलियागयाहैतोउसकेअनुरोधपरउक्त

अर्जितअवकाशकोबाल्यदेखभालअवकाशमेंसमायोजितकियाजासकेगा।
3- -2-2017/ -2008-216-79, 08-12-2008
शासनादेशसंख्याजी दस दिनांक तथाशासनादेश
-2-573/ -2009-216-79 24-03-2009
संख्याजी दस दिनांक इससीमातकसंशोधितसमझे
जायेंगे।
4-
संगतअवकाशनियमोंमेंआवश्यकसंशोधनयथासमयकियेजायेंगे।
,
भवदीया
( )
वृन्दासरूप
, "
प्रमुखसचिव वित्त।
12. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioners contends that the intent of the State Government is also
evident from the Government Order dated 11.04.2011 by way of which
the Government Orders dated 08.12.2008 and 24.03.2009 were
modified. He submits that, by virtue of the said Government Order, the
policy of the Central Government relating to the grant of ‘Maternity

6
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
Leave’ and ‘Child Care Leave’ to its employees has been adopted by the
State Government. Consequently, Rule 153(1) of the Financial
Handbook, Volume-II, Part 2 to 4, as well as the Government Order
dated 08.12.2008, to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions
of the Code, 2020, must yield to the said Code.
Respondents Arguments
13. Per contra, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits
that the claim of the petitioners cannot be allowed in view of Rule
153(1) of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in the
Financial Handbook, Volume-II, Part 2 to 4. In support of his
submission, he places reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench
1
of this Court in Renu Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Others , wherein, in
relation to an employee of an institution established and maintained by
the U.P. Basic Education Board, it was held that there is no conflict
between the second proviso to Rule 153 of the Fundamental Rules and
the provisions of the erstwhile Act, 1961, as the said Act does not apply
to the establishments of the U.P. Basic Education Board or the schools
maintained by it.
14. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents prays for dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition.
Consideration
15. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties,
before proceeding to examine the moot question as to whether the
provisions of the Code, 2020, would be applicable to the employees of
the State Government or whether the Fundamental Rules would govern
the field, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the relevant
constitutional provisions in the light of the parliamentary enactment and
the Fundamental Rules that may be attracted to the facts of the present
case.
16. Article 42 of the Constitution of India, as contained in Part IV
thereof, provides that the State shall make provisions for securing just
1. 2022 (2) ADJ 14

7
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. It is, therefore,
to be examined whether the provisions contained in the U.P.
Fundamental Rules in the Financial Handbook, on the subject of
maternity relief, are in consonance with the constitutional mandate
embodied in the Directive Principles of State Policy, applicable to the
State.
17. The provisions of the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4,
were framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and continue to
remain in force by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 313 of
the Constitution of India. It is no longer res integra that the nature of the
said Rules contained in the Financial Handbook is, at best, is that of
executive instructions; and by no stretch of imagination, can they be
brought within the category of an "enactment" made by the legislature.
18. Further, Article 38 of Part IV of the Constitution of India, as
amended by the 44th Amendment in 1978, directs the State to secure a
welfare State. It mandates the State to promote the welfare of the people,
by ensuring that the social order is informed by social, economic, and
political justice; and requires the State to minimize inequalities in
income, status, facilities, and opportunities.
19. Thereafter, Article 39 of the Constitution of India provides that the
citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of
livelihood; and that the health and strength of workers, both men and
women, are not abused or forced by economic necessity to enter into
avocations unsuited to their strength.
20. Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India, make provisions
for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief, and
mandate the State to make provisions for securing such conditions of
work and for providing maternity relief. To ensure that conditions of
work remain equitable and dignified, reference may also be made to
Article 15 of the Constitution, which provides that the State shall not

8
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
discriminate on the ground of sex and shall not be prevented from
2
making special provisions for women and children.
21. A scrutiny of the aforesaid constitutional provisions reveals that
the grant of maternity benefits, protection of the health and strength of
workers, and maintenance of a decent standard of life through "just and
humane conditions of work, constitute a constitutional mandate and an
obligation upon the State.
22. In the backdrop of the aforesaid constitutional provisions, the
question that arises for consideration is whether the benefit of "maternity
relief" can be curtailed by executive instructions and policies framed by
the State, or whether the legislation enacted by Parliament on the
subject, namely, “The Code on Social Security, 2020”, which finds place
in Entry 24 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India, would prevail.
23. It is also trite in law that where Parliament has legislated on a subject
contained in List III and the State Legislature enacts a law overriding the
said provisions; For eg. The Code, 2020, such law would require the
assent of the President as contemplated under Article 254(2) of the
Constitution of India. The same, however, is not the case in the present
matter.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in
concluding that The Code, 2020, does not contain any stipulation
prescribing a time gap between the grant of maternity benefits for the
first and second child, as provided under Rule 153(1) of the Financial
Handbook. On the contrary, Section 161 of the Code, 2020, categorically
provides that, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
in any other law, whether made before or after the coming into force of
the said Code, the provisions of the Code shall prevail. Consequently,
the stipulation contained in the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 and
2. (i) Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224
(ii) Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 321
(iii) Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 948

9
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook cannot be permitted to override
or curtail the benefits conferred under the Code, 2020.
25. The aforesaid fact further gains significance from the fact that the
State Government, vide its Government Order dated 11.04.2011, adopted
the same policy as is being followed by the Central Government for the
grant of ‘Maternity Leave’ as well as ‘Child Care Leave’ to its
employees; though at the relevant time “The Maternity Benefit Act,
1961” was applicable, however the relevant provisions are also pari
materia in the Code, 2020.
“The Code on Social Security, 2020”
(i) Section 2 (43) of the Code, 2020, defines "maternity benefit", in
respect of Chapter VI, which means the payment referred to in Section
60(1) thereof. For ready reference, Section 2 (43) of the Code, 2020 is
reproduced below:
“2(43) “maternity benefit”, in respect of Chapter VI, means the
payment referred to in sub-section (1) of section 60;”
(ii) Section 60 of the Code, 2020 further stipulates that every woman
shall be entitled to payment of maternity benefit, at the rate of the
average daily wage that is payable to her, for the days on which she has
worked during the period of three calendar months immediately
preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of
maternity, subject to the minimum rate of wage fixed or revised under
the Code on Wages, 2019 (29 of 2019), for a maximum period of 26
weeks. For ready reference, Section 60 of the Code, 2020 is reproduced
below:
“60. Right to payment of maternity benefit.—(1) Subject to the
other provisions of this Code, every woman shall be entitled to,
and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity
benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her
actual absence, that is to say, the period immediately preceding the
day of her delivery, and any period immediately following that
day.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “the average
daily wage” means the average of the woman's wages payable to

10
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
her for the days on which she has worked during the period of
three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which
she absents herself on account of maternity, subject to the
minimum rate of wage fixed or revised under the Code on Wages,
2019 (29 of 2019).
(2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has
actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom
she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than eighty
days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her
expected delivery.
Explanation.— For the purposes of calculating the period under
this sub-section, the days on which a woman has actually worked
in the establishment, the days for which she has been laid off or
was on holidays declared under any law for the time being in force
to be holidays with wages, during the period of twelve months
immediately preceding the expected date of her delivery shall be
taken into account.
(3) The maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to
maternity benefit shall be twentysix weeks of which not more than
eight weeks shall precede the expected date of her delivery:
Provided that the maximum period entitled to maternity benefit by
a woman having two or more surviving children shall be twelve
weeks of which not more than six weeks shall precede the date of
her expected delivery:
Provided further that where a woman dies during this period, the
maternity benefit shall be payable only for the days up to and
including the day of her death:
Provided also that where a woman, having been delivered of a
child, dies during her delivery or during the period immediately
following the date of her delivery for which she is entitled for the
maternity benefit, leaving behind in either case the child, the
employer shall be liable for the maternity benefit for that entire
period but if the child also dies during the said period, then, for the
days up to and including the date of the death of the child.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, “child”
includes a stillborn child.
(4) A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three
months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity
benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is

11
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother,
as the case may be.
(5) In case the work assigned to a woman is of such nature that she
may work from home, the employer may allow her to do so after
availing of the maternity benefit for such period and on such
conditions as the employer and the woman may mutually agree.”
(iii) Section 62 of the Code, 2020, provides for a notice in writing by a
woman to her employer, specifically indicating the date from which she
intends to remain absent from work. However, such date shall not be
earlier than eight weeks, from the date of her expected delivery.
Thereafter, the amount of maternity benefit for the period preceding the
date of expected delivery shall be paid in advance, and the amount due
for the subsequent period shall be paid by the employer to the woman
within 48 hours. The provision further stipulates that failure to give such
notice shall not disentitle a woman to maternity benefit or any other
amount payable under the Code, if she is otherwise entitled to such
benefit. For ready reference, Section 62 of the Code, 2020 is reproduced
below:
“62. Notice of claim for maternity benefit and payment thereof.—
(1) Any woman employed in an establishment and entitled to
maternity benefit under the provisions of this Chapter may give
notice in writing in such form as may be prescribed by the Central
Government, to her employer, stating that her maternity benefit
and any other amount to which she may be entitled under this
Chapter may be paid to her or to such person as she may nominate
in the notice and that she will not work in any establishment
during the period for which she receives maternity benefit.
(2) In the case of a woman who is pregnant, such notice shall state
the date from which she will be absent from work, not being a date
earlier than eight weeks from the date of her expected delivery.
(3) Any woman who has not given the notice when she was
pregnant may give such notice as soon as possible after her
delivery.
(4) On receipt of the notice, the employer shall permit such
woman to absent herself from the establishment during the period
for which she receives the maternity benefit.
(5) The amount of maternity benefit for the period preceding the
date of her expected delivery shall be paid in advance by the
employer to the woman on production of such proof as may be
prescribed by the Central Government that the woman is pregnant,
and the amount due for the subsequent period shall be paid by the

12
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
employer to the woman within forty-eight hours of production of
such proof as may be prescribed by the Central Government that
the woman has been delivered of a child.
(6) The failure to give notice under this section shall not disentitle
a woman to maternity benefit or any other amount under this
Chapter if she is otherwise entitled to such benefit or amount and
in any such case an Inspector-cum-Facilitator may either of his
own motion or on an application made to him by the woman,
order the payment of such benefit or amount within such period as
may be specified in the order.”
26. The entire scheme of the Code, 2020, does not contain any
stipulation prescribing a time gap between the birth of the first and
second child, as has been provided under Rule 153(1) of the Financial
Handbook.
27. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment dated 21.10.2022
3
passed in Smt. Anupam Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others , wherein the
Court also considered the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this
4
Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and Others .
28. The court is conscious of the fact that the aforementioned judgments
were given considering the provisions of "Maternity Benefits Act, 1961";
but however as far as the consideration of the provisions of The Code
2020, is concerned; the same are pari materia to the sections indicated
hereinabove and as such the nine Central labour enactments, relating to
social security also included "The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961". The
reasoning of the said judgement are therefore relevant. It lays down the
ratio that the Act (erstwhile ‘The Maternity Benefits Act,1961’ and Act
no. 36 of 2020 i.e., ‘The Code of Social Security, 2020’) shall prevail
over the executive instructions, including Rule 153 (1) of the Financial
Handbook, Volume II, Part 2-4.
Conclusion
29. The provisions of the Code, 2020, enacted by Parliament in exercise
of its legislative powers under Entry 24 of List III of the Seventh
3. Writ-A No. 9535 of 2022
4. 2017 (11) ADJ 399 (DB)

13
WRIA No. - 9299 of 2026
Schedule to the Constitution of India, seek to secure the goals enshrined
in Part IV of the Constitution of India, namely, the Directive Principles
of State Policy, and also give effect to the provisions contained in Article
15(3) of the Constitution of India.
30. Accordingly, it is held that the provisions of The Code, 2020 shall
prevail over any executive instructions, including Rule 153(1) of the
Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part 2 to 4, which has also been read
down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Anupam Yadav
(supra) in relation to the grant of maternity benefits for the second
pregnancy. The said benefits, therefore, shall be governed by the
provisions of the Code, 2020; which does not put any embargo, by way
of a timeline, between two pregnancies.
31. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 09.01.2026
(Annexure-2) and 06.01.2026 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the
claims of the petitioners have been rejected, are hereby set aside. A
further direction is issued to respondent No. 2 that, in the event the
petitioners submit fresh applications for the benefits available to them
under the Code, 2020, and if the same are permissible for the period for
which the benefit is claimed, respondent No. 3 shall take an appropriate
decision on such applications, keeping in view the observations made
and the law laid down by this Court herein above.
32. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within
a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the applications along
with a certified copy of this order.
33. With the aforesaid directions/observation, the writ petition stands
allowed.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
July 15, 2026
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad