Allahabad High Court
DAV RAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner had already received the minimum pay and had retired, rendering the relief sought unavailable.
Summary
Petitioner Dav Raj filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay him the minimum regular pay as per a 2002 Government Order and a 2010 Order, and to regularize his Group D service, relying on a Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal. The State contended that the petitioner had already received the minimum pay scale during his service and had since retired. The petitioner’s counsel accepted these statements. The Court held that, given the petitioner’s retirement and the fact that the relief sought was already granted, the petition was infructuous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous and delinked from the bunch matters.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, is available to a retired employee seeking mandamus for payment of minimum regular pay and service regularization under the cited Government Orders?
- Whether the petition remains maintainable after the petitioner has retired and the relief sought has already been granted.
Subjects
- mandamus
- minimum pay
- service regularization
- retirement
- writ petition
- infructuous
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 3339 of 2011
Dav Raj
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C. S. C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.49.24)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Pradeept Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay minimum of regular pay as directed to be paid by the
State Government vide G.O. dated 7.9.2002 (Annexure-3) adopting the
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 20.2.2002 in the State of U.P. Vs.
Putti Lal and the Government Order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure-13) from
the date their juniors were granted;
ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on Group D post
pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; "
3. It is submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State that the petitioner has already been granted the minimum pay-scale
during the service period and the petitioner has now retired.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to the aforesaid
statements made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.
WRIA No. 3339 of 2011
2
5. In such view of the matter, the instant petition has become infructuous
and the the same is dismissed as infructuous.
6. Let this case be delinked from bunch matters and shall not be shown in
the cause list.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 12, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…