Disposed¶17

Anjali Pal v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2026WRIC/1325/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Pradhan financial and administrative powers seized under Section 95(1)(g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 by District Magistrate order dated 30.12.2025 for denying emoluments to Panchayat Assistant contrary to G.O. dated 25.7.2021; petitioner pleaded Panchayat Assistant's one-year contractual appointment expired 30.11.2022, never extended, and explanation not considered; Allahabad High Court grants Standing Counsel two weeks to seek instructions, lists fresh; no merits decision, no precedent value yet.

What did the court decide?

No interim relief or final adjudication; learned Standing Counsel granted two weeks' time to seek instructions on the Government Order dated 25.7.2021; petition directed to be listed fresh after two weeks. ¶17

Anjali Pal vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1325 of 2026

Anjali Pal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anupam Kumar Shukla, Himanshu Kumar, Tanisha Jahangir Monir : C.S.C.
Court No.- 36

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Anupam Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2 dated 30.12.2025 seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sahaspur, Block Ambiapur, District Badaun, in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 for not acting in accordance with the Government Order dated 25.7.2021 by denying payment of emoluments to the Panchayat Assistant. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner had submitted her reply specifically stating that the appointment of respondent no.6 was contractual for a period of one year, which expired on 30.11.2022. The contract of service of the respondent no.6 was never extended, therefore, no payment of emoluments could have been made in accordance with law. It is further contended that the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 30.12.2025 seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has not considered the explanation of the petitioner on the issue of entitlement of the respondent no.6 for salary/emoluments after 30.11.2022. The ground for initiating formal enquiry is not contemplated under the provisions of

¶13

WRIC No. 1325 of 2026

¶14

¶15

Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to seek instruction in the matter to show the provision of the Government Order dated 25.7.2021, which has not been followed by the petitioner and the said violation is covered by the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947.

¶17

List, as fresh, after two weeks.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

January 19, 2026

Anil

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anjali Pal v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali Pal v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Rekha Mishra and Another vs State of U.P and 15 Others

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jai Prakash Narayan vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Kavita Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Intzar Husain vs State of U.P. and 4 Others