Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Santosh Narain Pandey And Others v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - A No. 55809 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 4451 (14 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard learned Standing counsel and perused the record.

Petitioners were selected for the post of constable in U.P. Police. During the training period they were paid regular salary. Subsequently, on the basis of the G.O. Dated 7th July 2003 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), the respondents tried to recover the salary paid to the petitioners during the training period on the ground that the said salary was paid without financial approval and the petitioners were only entitled to payment of stipend and not regular salary.

In the above circumstances, the petitioners challenged the G.O. Dated 7.7.2003 and prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents for making any recovery of the salary paid to them during the training period.

The issue regarding the above G.O. has been considered and decided by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 12.4.2005 passed in the Writ Petition No. 54870 of 2004 and other connected petitions. The writ petitions were allowed and the respondents were restrained for making any recovery from the petitioners.

Learned Standing counsel accepts that the matter is covered by the aforesaid decision.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order of this High Court dated 12.4.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 54870 of 2004 Nagesh Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Others and connected writ petitions and the respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the petitioners as aforesaid.

Dt. 14.3.2007

S.S. 55809/03


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.