Ram Baran Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 3rd October 2024 whereby fixation of petitioner has been redetermined with adjustments/recovery also being initiated against petitioner.

¶11

Earlier a detailed order was passed by this court on 5th December 2024 which is as follows:-

¶12

"1. Heard Sri I.M. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶13

2. Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition pertains to order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the Finance Controller, Office of Principal Chief conservator of Forest & Head of Department (PCCF), Lucknow wherein the salary of the petitioner from 2006 onwards has been refixed and finally it has been stated that last pay drawn by him his Rs.66,000/-, on the basis of which post retiral dues of the petitioner would be calculated alongwith his pension.

¶14

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the face of it the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside inasmuch as the respondents are not vested with any power or authority with regard to fixation of salary of the petitioner since 2006 onwards.

¶15

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is due

¶16

WRIA No. 11119 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

procedure in place for which salary, increments and other financial benefits granted to the Government Servants are fixed. It is submitted that unreasonableness of the respondents is evident from the fact that initially last pay drawn as well as entire pay structure of the petitioner was reconsidered by the respondents by order dated 28.08.2023 and Rs.71,100/was fixed as last pay drawn. Subsequently, on the interference of this Court, the respondents again undertook the exercise and by means of order dated 05.04.2024, his last pay drawn was shown Rs.68,000/- and yet again by impugned order dated 14.10.2024, petitioner's last pay drawn has been reduced to Rs.66,000/-.

¶19

5. It is not comprehensible as to how the persons who is well versed in the matters of finance and government orders are repeatedly changing their orders every month. Apart from above, we do not find as to what was the source of power for revisiting entire pay structure and salary of the Government servant since the date he joined service, on the eve of his retirement and then entire excess payment made to him is sought to be recovered.

¶20

6. This Court on many occasions has laid down law in this regard and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through Special Secretary - Writ Petition No. 1508 (S/B) of 2001 (decided on 27.03.2017) has clearly stated as under :-

¶21

"10. It is well established that when a power is there and there is no period prescribed under law, power should be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable period also and not after a very long time or at any time. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if thee is any error in pay fixation etc., Competent Authority is entitled to rectify mistake within a period of three years. We further provide that in case such a mistake is detected after three years in that case instead of taking action against the person who is benefited with such wrong fixation, Competent Authority must take action against the person who caused such mistake and is responsible and recover loss suffered by department."

¶22

7. Apart from above, even Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has stated that with regard to the period prior to the superannuation which can be considered for re-fixation of salary, it was considered in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Others, Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2008 (decided on 17.04.2014), where the period which

¶23

WRIA No. 11119 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

can be reviewed is only 34 months and stated in para 6 of the said judgment as under :-

¶26

"6. It had been submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and somewhere in the month of March, 2005 it was revealed that a mistake had been committed while fixing pay of the appellant in 1986. It had been further submitted that by virtue of the aforesaid G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, the mistake committed in pay fixation beyond period of 34 months prior to retirement of the appellant could not have been taken into account by the respondent employer and therefore, neither any recovery could have been sought by the respondents nor there could have been any reduction in the pension on the basis of reduction of salary."

¶27

8. Despite above decisions, it seems that various finance authorities of State of U.P. are bent upon to violate the same and it is after the lapse of more than 15-20 years that exercise is undertaken and salaries of the Government employees who are at the verge of their superannuation are re-fixed and alleged excess amount is sought to be recovered from their post retiral dues. 9. Accordingly, let personnel affidavit be filed by respondent no. 3 - Finance Controller Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Department (PCCF), Lucknow within next one week, replying to all the queries raised herein above relating to jurisdiction to pass an order and also when such salary has been wrongly fixed by previous authority, what action and proceedings were taken against them.

¶28

10. This Court is also conscious of the fact that in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2014 (4) SCC 334, where in such situation the State has been restrained from recovering the amount from the Government servants of Class III and Class IV posts and such wrong decision infact cause huge loss to the exchequer and such a loss to the State exchequer cannot go un-noticed and and such an unjust enrichment of an individual, shall be paid back by the person who is responsible for the same.

¶29

11. List this case on 19.12.2024, in top ten cases.

¶30

12. Till the next date of listing, in case provisional pension has not been released to the petitioner, same shall be considered and released with expedition and this Court shall be informed about the same on the next date of listing."

¶31

WRIA No. 11119 of 2024

¶32

4

¶33

Subsequently counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties but does not address the query posed by this court which was indicated in the order dated 11th March 2025 which is as follows:-

¶34

"1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶35

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶36

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though two counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, but in both the affidavits the respondents have failed to answer the query raised by this Court in paragraph no.4 of its order dated 05.12.2024, as to why the last pay drawn of the petitioner has been fixed differently on three occasions.

¶37

4. This Court has perused the personal affidavit filed by Smt. Maya Pandey, Finance Controller in the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Department (PCCF), Lucknow. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit indicates that respondent no.2- Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Department (PCCF), Lucknow has failed to give a satisfactory reply to the observations made by this Court in paragraph no.4 of its order dated 05.12.2024.

¶38

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not have any other option except to direct the opposite party no.2 to appear before this Court with relevant documents to justify the fixing of different last pay drawn of the petitioner on three occasions.

¶39

6. List on 20.03.2025 in the top ten cases. "

¶40

Evidently,the queries as raised have not been answered till date.

¶41

The aforesaid aspect has clearly been enunciated by Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others reported in 2014(2) ESC 271 (SC). The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-

¶42

"5. It had been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant employee that the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is incorrect for the reason that the High Court did not consider the G.O. dated 16.1.2007 bearing No. S-3-35/10-07-101(6)/2005 which reads as under:

¶43

[1]. Pension Fixation Authority shall inquire into emoluments of only last 10

¶44

WRIA No. 11119 of 2024

¶45

5

¶46

months prior to retirement and for that examine the records of only two years prior thereto i.e. only the records of 34 months would be examined for the purpose of grant of pension, as has been provided in the aforesaid Government Order dated 13.12.1977.

¶47

[2]. Pension Allowing Authority shall not be entitled to correct the mistake in determining the pay during service tenure beyond the period prescribed in para (1) above. Mistakes in pay determination of an employee can be effectively removed through the process of general inquiry/audit only when the employee is still in service."

¶48

In view thereof, aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶49

In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 3rd October 2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari with a direction to opposite parties to make payment of post-retiral benefits to petitioner including arrears thereof on the basis of last pay drawn ignoring redetermination/ re-fixation of pay scale of petitioner vide impugned order. Any deduction made shall also be refunded to petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority along with other benefits as directed herein above shall be made within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority.

¶50

Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶51

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶52

February 11, 2026

¶53

prabhat

¶54

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

Ram Baran Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Baran Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagauti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another

Fateh Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mateen Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Parvati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secdy. Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Kiran Prabha Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram Vikash Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others