Hargovind Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hargovind Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions: Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Agra impleaded as respondent No.4; respondent No.4 and respondent No.1 (Principal Secretary (Home Affairs), U.P.) directed to file separate personal affidavits within a week; matter listed for 29.04.2026 at 10:00 a.m. Final merits not decided in this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 reducing the petitioner's pensionary benefits on the allegation of incorrect pay fixation granted in the year 2008 is in violation of the Government Order dated 16.01.2007 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department and others, (2014) 16 SCC 444 : 2014(2) ESC 271 (SC).

Court's answer

Despite the law having been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushil Kumar (supra), authorities continue to pass such orders reducing pensionary benefits, which are in complete violation of the law laid down and are not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Agra as respondent No.4 during the course of the day.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.4 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters Commissionerate, Agra) 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 such orders were passed in complete violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.), interim order in Writ - A No. 5176 of 2026 (Hargovind Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others): writ petition challenging the order dated 28.05.2025 approved by respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Agra, reducing the petitioner's pension fixation on the finding that he was incorrectly granted salary in 2008. Counsel for the petitioner contended the order violated the 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), wherein it was held that pay-fixation made more than 13 years prior to superannuation cannot be interfered with. The Court observed that a large number of identical cases were coming before it and that, despite the settled law, such orders continued to be passed in complete violation thereof, making them 'not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature'. The Court permitted impleadment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Agra as respondent No.4, directed respondent No.4 and respondent No.1/Principal Secretary (Home Affairs), Government of U.P., Lucknow to file separate personal affidavits within a week explaining the circumstances, and listed the matter for 29.04.2026 at 10:00 a.m.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 5176 of 2026

Hargovind Singh Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Agra as respondent No.4 during the course of the day.

The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2025 approved by the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Agra whereby the pension fixation of the petitioner has been reduced on finding that he was incorrectly granted salary in the year 2008.

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 2008 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 13 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 in spite 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

WRIA No. 5176 of 2026

2

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.

In this view of the matter, respondent no.4-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters Commissionerate, Agra as well as respondent no.1Principal 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 29.04.2026. The matter will be taken up at 10:00 a.m.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

April 13, 2026

saqlain

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad