WRIT - A No. 889 of 2026 at Allahabad

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 889 of 2026 Dr. Santosh Singh .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Shukla, Sumit Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 33 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is a Veterinary Doctor at District Etah, however, the writ petitioner was transferred from Etah to Kannauj. The writ petitioner had joined the transferred place, however, he had not been paid salary from February 2025 to May 2025. 3. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs adjudication at the first instance by Respondent no.2. 4. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.2, who on the said motion shall proceed to c