Allahabad High Court
UNION OF INDIA THUR. SECY. AND OTHERSversusSMT. SHYAMA SHUKLA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The Union of India, as employer, challenged two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): one dated 2 August 2010 that set aside a minor punishment imposed on employee Shyama Shukla, and a subsequent order dated 11 May 2012 dismissing a review of that decision. The petitioners sought to revive the disciplinary action, while the respondent, having retired, did not pursue the matter further. The High Court observed that the writ petition had become infructuous because the respondent was no longer in service and no further steps were taken. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The judgment underscores that a petition becomes non‑maintainable when the relief sought cannot be granted due to the changed circumstances of the parties.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a writ petition when the respondent has retired and the matter has become infructuous?
Subjects
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- minor punishment
- review petition
- writ petition
- infructuous
- retirement
- employer-employee dispute
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 57737 of 2012
Union Of India Thur. Secy. And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Shyama Shukla And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Ashok Nigam, Manoj Kumar Singh,
Saurabh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vishnu Behari Tewari
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The writ petition has become infructuous. It is dismissed as such.
March 18, 2026
sailesh
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…