Arun Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arun Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Writ A No. 16 of 2026 (Ram Babu v. State of U.P and others), i.e., the benefit of that Co-ordinate Bench order extended to the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in whose case the salary was incorrectly granted in 1998 (as against 2002 in the co-ordinate bench matter), is entitled to the benefit of the order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Writ A No. 16 of 2026.

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Writ A No. 16 of 2026 (Ram Babu v. State of U.P and others), extending the benefit of that order to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The fact that the petitioner was incorrectly granted salary in the year 1998, whereas the relied-upon order referred to the year 2002, did not preclude extension of the benefit of the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 06.01.2026 to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.), by judgment dated February 6, 2026, allowed Writ - A No. 1226 of 2026 (Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 7 others) in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 in Writ A No. 16 of 2026 (Ram Babu v. State of U.P and others), on the parties' joint submission that the controversy was squarely covered thereby. The only difference noted was that in the present case the petitioner was stated to have been incorrectly granted salary in 1998, whereas the relied-upon order mentioned 2002. The followed order had been made in a petition challenging an order dated 06.11.25 issued pursuant to Government letter dated 06.11.2025 and Minutes of Meeting dated 22.02.2024 reducing pension fixation on a finding of incorrect pay-fixation granted in 2002; it recorded the submission that the reduction violated Government Order dated 16.01.2007 and the Supreme Court decision in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department and others, (2014) 16 SCC 444 : 2014(2) ESC 271 (SC) (pay-fixation more than ten years prior to superannuation cannot be interfered with), granted time for a counter affidavit, stayed the impugned order, and directed payment of full pension as per last pay drawn in the interim.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 1226 of 2026

Arun Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 7 Others

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, Bhriguram Ji, Deo Brat Pandey, Prabhat Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 32

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

It is submitted by the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.01.2026 passed in Writ A No. 16 of 2026 which is reproduced below:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.11.25 issued pursuant to Government letter dated 06.11.2025 as well as Minutes of Meeting dated 22.02.2024 whereby pension fixation of petitioner has been reduced on finding that he was incorrectly granted salary in year 2002.

3. It is submitted that impugned order clearly indicates the aspect that petitioner's pensionary benefits are being reduced on allegation of incorrect pay-fixation granted in year 2002 and therefore such impugned order is in violation of Government Order dated 16.01.2007 as well as judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department and others, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 444: 2014(2) ESC 271 (SC) whereby it has been clearly held that pay-fixation having taken place more than ten years prior to date of superannuation of an employee cannot be interfered with.4. Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner appear to have force and require consideration for which learned State Counsel is granted four weeks' time to file their counter affidavit.

5. List this case in week commencing 09.02.2026.

6. Until further orders of this Court, operation of impugned order dated 06.11.2025 based on Government letter dated 06.11.2025 as well as Minutes of Meeting dated 22.02.2024 shall remain stayed.

WRIA No. 1226 of 2026

2

7. As a consequence, it is directed that petitioner shall be entitled to full pension as per last pay drawn ignoring the impugned re-fixation. "

Thus, according to the counsel for the petitioner the benefit of the order dated 06.01.2026 may also be extended to the petitioner. It is only that in the case of the petitioner, petitioner has been incorrectly granted salary in the year 1998 whereas in the order relied upon by the parties, the same is mentioned as the year 2002.

Hence, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Writ A No. 16 of 2026 (Ram Babu v. State of U.P and others).

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)

February 6, 2026

Nadeem

Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad