Raj Bahadur Singh vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Raj Bahadur Singh vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only: respondents no.1 and no.3 to file separate personal affidavits within a week explaining the circumstances of passing orders in violation of Apex Court law; matter listed on 09.04.2026 to be taken up immediately after recess. Final adjudication of the writ petition pending.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 28.06.2025 reducing the petitioner's pension fixation on the ground of allegedly incorrect pay fixation/salary granted in 2010 is violative of the Government Order dated 16.01.2007 and the settled law in Sushil Kumar Singhal that pay-fixation made more than ten years prior to superannuation cannot be interfered with.

Court's answer

Interim direction: respondent no.3 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters Commissionerate, Prayagraj) and respondent no.1 (Principal Secretary (Home Affairs), Government of U.P., Lucknow) are directed to file their separate personal affidavits within a week explaining under what circumstances orders in complete violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court were passed.

Key takeaways

Observation that despite the law being settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushil Kumar (supra), authorities continue to pass such orders in complete violation of law laid down by this Court, making them not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature.¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.), Writ-A No. 4308 of 2026, Raj Bahadur Singh v. The State of U.P. and 2 Others (order dated March 30, 2026) — interim order in a writ petition challenging the order dated 28.06.2025 approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Prayagraj, reducing the petitioner's pension fixation on the finding that he was incorrectly granted salary in 2010. Petitioner relied on Government Order dated 16.01.2007 and Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department and others, (2014) 16 SCC 444 : 2014(2) ESC 271 (SC), that pay-fixation more than ten years prior to superannuation cannot be interfered with. The Court noted large numbers of identical cases and observed that such orders, passed despite settled Apex Court law, are not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature. Respondent no.3 (DCP, Prayagraj) and respondent no.1 (Principal Secretary (Home Affairs), U.P.) were directed to file separate personal affidavits within a week; matter listed on 09.04.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 4308 of 2026

Raj Bahadur Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Archana Singh, Bramh Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.06.2025 approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Prayagraj whereby the pension fixation of the petitioner has been reduced on finding that he was incorrectly granted salary in the year 2010.

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that impugned order clearly indicates aspect that petitioner's pensionary benefits are being reduced on allegation of incorrect pay fixation granted in the year 2010 though such impugned order is in violation of Government Order dated 16.01.2007 as well as judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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.

A large number of cases are coming everyday before this Court having identical controversy. It is unfortunate that inspite of the fact that law in this regard has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar (supra) such kind of orders are being passed by the authorities, which are in complete violation of law laid down by this Court meaning thereby orders are not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature.

WRIA No. 4308 of 2026

2

In this view of the matter, respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters Commissionerate, Prayagraj as well as respondent no.1-Principal Secretary (Home Affairs), Government of U.P., Lucknow are directed to file their separate personal affidavit that under what circumstances such kind of orders has been passed, which is in complete violation of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above. The aforesaid affidavits be filed within a week.

List on 09.04.2026. The matter will be taken up on the said date immediately after recess.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

March 30, 2026

Pramod Tripathi

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad