Dismissed¶12

Panjab Singh v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026WRIA/5856/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal of writ petition; WRIT - A No. 5856 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Prakash Padia, J.; decided May 7, 2026; Panjab Singh v. The State of U.P. and 4 others; petitioner superannuated 24.09.2025; wages/salary from date of reinstatement up to April 2026 paid (Rs.2,81,034/- credited 02.05.2026) pursuant to Court order dated 23.04.2026; continuing direction to pay salary month by month as and when it falls due; no decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petition was dismissed as infructuous after compliance, with a clarification that the respondents will pay the petitioner's salary month by month as and when it falls due. ¶12

Panjab Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5856 of 2026

Panjab Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Durga Tiwari .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶10

It is informed by Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 23.04.2026, the petitioner who was already superannuated in service on 24.09.2025 was paid is wages/salary from the date of reinstatement up to April, 2026 and amount, i.e., Rs.2,81,034/- in this regard has already been credited in the back account of the petitioner on 02.05.2026.

¶11

In this view of the matter, it is very fairly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that relief as sought by the petitioner in the present petition has already been granted, no further order is required to be passed in the matter and prays to dismiss the present petition as having become infructuous.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶13

It is made clear that the respondents will pay salary to the petitioner month by month as and when it falls due.

¶14

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶15

May 7, 2026 saqlain

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Panjab Singh v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panjab Singh v. the State of U.P. and 4 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

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Harkesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashikant Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vinod Kumar and 74 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Soneya Upadhyaya @ Soneya Sharma Vs the State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kunwar Gyanendra Pal Singh Vs the State of U.P. and Another