Dismissed¶18

Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026WRIA/5509/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of pay – refund sought by mandamus – recovery made under order dated 19.05.2007 of District Development Officer, Rampur for period 01.04.2001 to 29.09.2003 – recovery order never challenged and still operative – refund relief refused – writ petition dismissed, no costs – retiral benefits/assured career progression claim not pressed – post-retiral dues left to authority to consider per law – WRIT - A No. 5509 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Prakash Padia, J., decided April 20, 2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the Court clarified that post-retiral dues, if any, shall be considered and paid by the authority concerned in accordance with law. ¶18

Vijay Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5509 of 2026

¶3

Vijay Pal Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Ghazala Bano Quadri
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 6

¶7

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶8

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers:-

¶9

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing / commanding the respondent No. 2 and 3 to provide the retiral benefits as well as benefit of assured career progression to the petitioner along with the interest within stipulated period.

¶10

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to refund / return the recovered amount which is from 01.04.2021 to 29.09.2003."

¶11

It is argued that correct date is 01.04.2001 and not 01.04.2021 as contained in the prayer no. 2.

¶12

After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner confined her prayer insofar as the prayer n.2 is concerned and argued that respondent no.3 namely Chief Develop Officer/ District Development Officer, District Rampur be directed to make the payment of aforesaid amount to the petitioner.

¶13

It transpires from perusal of the record that earlier order dated 19.05.2007 was passed by the District Development Officer, Rampur by which the recovery from the petitioner between 01.04.2001 till 29.09.2003 has been made.

¶14

WRIA No. 5509 of 2026

¶15

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed to return the aforesaid amount. It is not stated in the entire writ petition nor any arguments has been raised that whether the aforesaid order namely 19.05.2007 was ever been challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate authority.

¶17

It is admitted that the aforesaid order is existing even today.

¶18

In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶19

It is made clear that in case the petitioner is entitled for any post retiral dues, authority concerned will consider and make the payment of the same to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶20

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶21

April 20, 2026 Swati

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tarif Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhananjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachin Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shachi Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others