Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32388 (ALL)

MURLIDHAR PANDEY AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THR SEC DEPT OF BASIC EDU AND OTHERS

WRIA/40012/2005 · 2025-04-17

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40012 of 2005 Petitioner :- Murlidhar Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thr Sec Dept Of Basic Edu And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.P.N. Giri,Akhilanand Mishra Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri A.P.N. Giri and Sri Akhilanand Mishra, Advocates, are present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs: "a) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in the primary section of Shri Ram Janaki Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Dudahi, District Kushi Nagar and to further command the respondents to make regular payment of monthly salary to the petitioners from Government Grant, regularly, every month. b) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to disburse to the petitioners the arrears of their salary within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court c) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the alleged resignation and resolutions of committee of management dated 12.08.2003 and 11.09.2003 as non est and having no legal effect" 3. I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioners are not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for. 4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioners have lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioners is absent. 5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 1.11.2018 Siddhant Sahu