Allahabad High Court
LOMESH DUTT SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because all claimed amounts have been paid.
Summary
Petitioner Lomesh Dutt Sharma filed a writ petition seeking mandamus orders directing the District Magistrate, Meerut, to pay various arrears, gratuity, and a share of GPF amount. The petitioner’s counsel, Mohan Srivastava, who is also the State’s Standing Counsel, requested time to file a fresh vakalatnama. The respondents submitted that all the amounts claimed had already been paid, attaching a notary affidavit to that effect. The court examined the prayers and the affidavit, finding that the relief sought had been fully satisfied. Consequently, the court held that nothing remained to be adjudicated and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a writ petition when the relief claimed has already been granted and the petitioner acknowledges receipt of the payments?
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- payment of arrears
- gratuity
- infructuous
- civil service
- standing counsel
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 25015 of 2014
Lomesh Dutt Sharma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohan Srivastava, Siddhartha Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Satish Chaturvedi
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.64)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Sri Mahendra Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohan
Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri Mohan
Srivastava has been appointed as Standing Counsel for the State,
therefore, some time may be granted to take fresh instructions or file
vakalatnama in the instant case. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for
the respondent no.4 is present.
2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State on instruction
submits that the prayers in the instant petition has already been satisfied.
Accordingly, the writ petition has become infructuous.
3. In such view of the matter, this Court has noted that the following
prayers have been made in the instant petition:
"(a). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Meerut to make
payment of sanctioned amount of Rs. 85,718/- alongwith upto date
interest pertaining to fixation of Pay from 6.9.1997 to the date of
retirement 31.7.2002 as referred to in Annexure-3.
(b). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of
commanding the respondent no. 2 to make payment difference amount of
19 months wrongly calculated by fixing salary in the year 2001 as Rs.
4815/- in place of Rs. 4900/-alongwith upto date interest.
(c). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
WRIA No. 25015 of 2014
2
commanding respondent no. 2 to make payment of balance amount of
Gratuity which was detained by order dated 27 March 2003 and also
balance amount of revised Pay Scale pending since 1994.
(d). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding respondent no. 4 to send authorization for payment of 10%
of GPF amount and consequential direction to respondent no. 2 to make
payment of said amount to petitioner"
4. According to para-4 of the counter affidavit, all the amounts as prayed
in the petition have been paid to the petitioner and in this regard a notary
affidavit dated 07.04.2017 of the petitioner has also been annexed along
with the counter affidavit, according to which all the payments prayed for
in the instant petition has already been received by the petitioner.
5. In such view of the matter, nothing survives in the matter. Accordingly,
the instant petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 7, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…