Disposed¶10

Raj Deo Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2025WRIA/2411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess pay; 2011 increment granted for parity with juniors deemed not admissible; refund of recovered excess amount directed; pay re-fixation permitted per government order dated 29.4.2000 after hearing; fresh order limited to pay fixation, no recovery; Director Ayurved Services Lucknow instructions 7.3.2025; government order 29.9.2020; State of U.P.; Raj Deo Ram; Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; writ petition disposed 11.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondent to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioner; liberty granted to respondents to re-fix his salary in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing, with any fresh order confined to pay fixation and involving no recovery. ¶10

Raj Deo Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the excess amount recovered from the petitioner arising out of the 2011 increment (granted to bring his pay at par with juniors) should be refunded to him. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The respondents are granted liberty to re-fix the petitioner's salary in light of their orders passed in pursuance of the government order dated 29.4.2000, but such re-fixation must be done in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since no further grievance subsists in view of the respondents' instructions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioner.

¶10

Key takeaways

Any fresh order to be passed will be solely for the purpose of pay fixation and shall not be for making any recovery against the petitioner.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. 2411 of 2025, Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J., Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench) concerning recovery by the respondents of the financial benefit of a 2011 increment granted to the petitioner to bring his pay at par with juniors receiving higher salary, said increment having been treated as not admissible. On written instructions of the Director, Ayurved Services, Lucknow dated 7.3.2025 indicating that the entire excess amount recovered in lieu of the government order dated 29.9.2020 would be refunded, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to refund the recovered excess amount, permitted the respondents to re-fix the petitioner's salary in pursuance of the government order dated 29.4.2000 in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing, and made clear that any fresh order would be only for pay fixation and not for making any recovery against the petitioner. Decision dated 11.3.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15015

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2411 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Deo Ram

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶8

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in 2011 the petitioner was granted certain increment considering the fact that juniors were receiving more salary than the petitioner and consequently to bring the petitioner at par with his juniors the increment was granted to him in 2011 which was not admissible to the petitioner and accordingly the respondents sought to recover the entire financial benefits given to him and to recover the excess amount from him.

¶9

Learned Standing counsel, on the basis of written instructions received from the Director, Ayurved Services, Lucknow on 7.3.2025 has informed this Court that the entire excess amount recovered from the petitioner in lieu of the government order dated 29.9.2020 has been decided to be refunded to the petitioner forthwith and pay of the petitioner shall be re-fixed again in light of the aforesaid government order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The instruction are taken on record.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid instructions received by the Standing counsel, no further grievance of the petitioner subsists. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent to refund the excess amount recovered from him. In light of the orders passed by the respondents in pursuance of the government order dated 29.4.2000, the respondents are also granted liberty to re-fix the salary of the petitioner but the same may be done in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

It is made clear that fresh order which may be passed would be only for the purpose of pay fixation and not for making any recovery against the petitioner.

¶12

With aforesaid observations the petitioner stands disposed of.

¶13

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 RKM.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Deo Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Deo Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalji Maurya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Forest) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Tej Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Devesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Lko. and 4 Others

Mrs. Zubeida Shahanshah and Another vs Sri Sudhir Shukla and 2 Others

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law and Legal Remembrance Lko. and 2 Others