Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135587 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 877 of 1998 Petitioner :- Vishnu Datt Pandey And Others Respondent :- U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mansi Singh,Mohan Lal,Om Prakash Tripathi,R. Upadhayay,Ram M. Kaushik,Samiksha Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,R.K.Srivastava,V.K.Birla Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1.Heard Ms.Samiksha Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Karshit Nigam on behalf of Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. Initially, this writ petition was filed by 4 respondents. 3, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner no.1 on instructions submits that petitioner nos.2 to 4 have expired, though not supported by any documents, however, since none appeared on behalf of remaining petitioners, therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed in regard to respondent nos.2 to 4 and now this writ petition survives qua to petitioner no.1 only. 4. Petitioner no.1 was appointed against a scheme and since funds were not paid by the State, petitioner no.1 and others were disengaged, therefore, this writ petition was filed. 5. This Court has passed a detailed interim order on 16.1.1998, whereby the impugned order was stayed and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, has enjoyed fruits of the interim order and he after attaining the age of superannuation got retired and is receiving pension also. 6. This writ petition got dismissed for want of prosecution on as many as four times, however restored also. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that grievance of the petitioner at this stage is that he was not paid salary for about 62 months when he worked in view of interim order, though details of the period is not on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that no amendment is carried out so far as said grievance is concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the absence of any material, no direction may be passed in this regard. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that scheme has ended in the year 1995-1996. 11. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the records. 12. As referred above, this writ petition survives only in respect of petitioner no.1 and since he has already enjoyed fruits of interim order passed by this Court, therefore, purpose of this writ petition is fulfilled. 13. There is no material on record with regard to grievance of non- payment of salary, therefore, said claim cannot be decided in present writ petition. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case petitioner has served with respondents and has not been paid salary for the said period, he will be at liberty to approach concerned respondent who will consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad