Writ petition by retired employees claiming a notional annual increment that fell due the day after their retirement. The court held the issue settled by Supreme Court precedent, found the impugned order contrary to it, granted time to withdraw the order or show cause, and directed officers to file affidavits or appear in person.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6872 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramesh Pratap Singh And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Singh,Bramh Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
On 03.07.2024, the following order was passed:
"Connect with Writ-A No. 6872 of 2024.
The question involved in this case is if the petitioners, who have retired on 30.06.2015 is entitled to increment that they earned from 1st July, 2014 to 30.06.2015 that has fallen due on the day after their retirement on notional basis. This question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director (Admin. HR) KPTCL and others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on every Authority throughout the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution. There is no avenue for any Authority to take a stand contrary to the law declared by this Court.
This Court is told that in keeping with the aforesaid law, a Government Order has been issued. We are not impressed. A Government Order is not required to validate or enforce an order of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court operates on its own force and binds every officer of the State, including the State Government to act in accordance with law declared. Short of that the law declared by this Court, unless overruled by a larger Bench or by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, binds the State Government and their officers. It does not require a Government Order to validate our orders. We do not appreciate this stand of validating orders of their Lordships of the Supreme Court or the High Court through a Government Order as if without the Government Order, the law declared by Supreme Court would be of no consequence. This system of issuing Government Orders in order to validate the orders of the Constitutional Courts appears to be contumacious.
Now, in this case, the impugned order is ex facie contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (Supra). I have already dealt with this issue in Shri Pal vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:66579, and on repeat occasion, indicated that increment already
earned but fallen due on the date of retirement notionally claimed cannot be refused. Yet, this Court comes across the same plea repeatedly taken by the State.
A week's time is granted to the respondents as a measure of locus poenitentiae to withdraw the orders impugned, if they so desires or show cause by filing a counter affidavit why the impugned order be not quashed, suitable direction issued for grant of the petitioner's increment and exemplary costs awarded recoverable from the salary of the officer, who passed the order impugned dated 31.07.2020.
Lay as fresh again on 11.07.2024 along with the connected matter.
Let this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary(Environment and Forest), Government of U.P., Lucknow, the Principal Chief Conservator and Head of Department Paryavaran, Van and Climate Change Department, U.P., Lucknow and the Director of Finance and Pension, 8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours."
On 11.07.2024, none of the parties were present and the following order was made:
"Perused the order dated 03.07.2024. In compliance with the said order, an affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Environment and Forest), U.P., Lucknow, amongst others, was required to be filed.
When the case is called on, no one appears on behalf of the parties.
Considering the nature of the order passed on 03.07.2024, this matter stands adjourned as fresh to 18.07.2024.
Let this order be communicated to the learned Chief Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel for the petitioners by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours."
Today when the case is taken up, there is no affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Environment and Forest), U.P., Lucknow, the Principal Chief Conservator & Head of Department, Paryavaran, Van and Climate Change Department, U.P., Lucknow and the Director of Finance and Pension, 8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow. In the circumstances, let each of the aforesaid respondents, that is to say, the Additional Chief Secretary (Environment and Forest), U.P., Lucknow, the Principal Chief Conservator & Head of Department, Paryavaran, Van and Climate Change Department, U.P., Lucknow and the Director
of Finance and Pension, 8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow show cause by their own affidavit within three days next i.e. 22.07.2024 or appear in person on the said date.
It is made clear that if the personal affidavits are filed, the said officers need not appear; else, they will remain present before the Court at 02:00 p.m.
Lay as fresh again on 22.07.2024 at 02:00 p.m.
Let this order be communicated to the the Additional Chief Secretary (Environment and Forest), U.P., Lucknow, the Principal Chief Conservator & Head of Department, Paryavaran, Van and Climate Change Department, U.P., Lucknow and the Director of Finance and Pension, 8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.
Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Deepak
Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether retired employees who retired on 30.06.2015 are entitled to notional one increment earned from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 falling due after retirement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Director (Admin. HR) KPTCL and others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401Relied on¶7
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Pratap Singh And 12 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
