Dismissed¶13

Union of India Thur. Secy. and Others v. Smt. Shyama Shukla and Another

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WRIA/57737/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Division Bench (Arindam Sinha, J. and Satya Veer Singh, J.), decision dated March 18, 2026. Union of India (petitioner/employer) vs. Smt. Shyama Shukla (respondent no. 1/employee). Challenge to CAT orders of 02.08.2010 and 11.05.2012 setting aside a minor punishment and dismissing review. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous due to non-prosecution and employee's retirement. Keywords: infructuous writ petition; Central Administrative Tribunal; minor punishment set aside; review dismissed; retirement of employee; service matter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. ¶13

Union of India Thur. Secy. and Others Vs Smt. Shyama Shukla and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 57737 of 2012

¶3

Union Of India Thur. Secy. And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Shyama Shukla And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dr. Ashok Nigam, Manoj Kumar Singh, Saurabh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Vishnu Behari Tewari

¶9

Court No. - 29

¶10

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶11

Mr. Abhudaya Pratap Singh, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioners (Union of India/employer). He submits, under challenge are orders dated 2nd August, 2010 and 11th May, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. By first order the tribunal had set aside the minor punishment order. By the second order, review against the first order was also dismissed.

¶12

Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi, learned advocate leading Mr. R.K. Dixit, learned advocate appear on behalf of respondent no. 1 (employee). Mr. Awasthi submits, by impugned order dated 2nd August, 2010 the tribunal while setting aside the minor punishment order had left it open to the employer to proceed afresh. The review petition and thereafter writ petition was filed and not prosecuted. Nothing also was done. In the mean time his client has retired.

¶13

The writ petition has become infructuous. It is dismissed as such.

¶14

March 18, 2026 sailesh

¶15

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

¶16

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Union of India Thur. Secy. and Others v. Smt. Shyama Shukla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thur. Secy. and Others v. Smt. Shyama Shukla and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Karamchari Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Haji Mohammad Naeem vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Committee of Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Karamchari Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Man Chand Gautam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reshma Pal Vs Umesh Pal

Ram Kumar Vs Sangeeta Gupta