Dhyan Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

The petitioner while working on the post of Sub Inspector superannuated from service on 31.12.2022 and his salary and pension was reduced vide order dated 26.04.2023. Aggrieved against the aforesaid a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner being Writ A No.21754 of 2023, which was allowed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 05.03.2024. The aforesaid order was subsequently corrected vide order dated 24.09.2024. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with Contempt Application (Civil) No.4685 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner in which notices were issued to the opposite parties. Subsequent to the aforesaid, another writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ A No.3179 of 2025 with the prayer to revised basic pay of the petitioner Rs.62,200/- and pay him pension according to the revised pay scale. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed due to pendency of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the aforesaid Special Appeal No.295 of 2025 was preferred by the petitioner, which was finally allowed vide judgement and order dated 16.04.2025. The order dated 16.04.2025 reads as follows :-

¶12

"1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the special appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself considering the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶13

This special appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge on 12.3.2025 in Writ-A No.3179 of 2025, whereby learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the matter on the ground that the issues pressed are already engaging the attention of the Contempt Court in Contempt Application (Civil) No.4685 of 2024.

¶14

It transpires that the appellant had previously filed Writ-A No. 21754 of 2023 which was disposed of

¶15

WRIA No. 5931 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

vide following order passed on 5.3.2024:-

¶18

?1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶19

"i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Pay Fixation Order dated 26.4.2023 passed by Respondent No.4 District Level Committee (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and letter dated 18.07.2023 sent by the Respondent no.4 deducting the commuted amount of Rs. 5,52,038=00 from the Post retiral dues (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition).

¶20

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to refund back the recovered amount of Rs. 5,52,038=00, within specific period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶21

It is argued that before passing the aforesaid order impugned, at no point of time any notice or opportunity has been provided to the petitioner.

¶22

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, instructions received under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Firozabad dated 08.02.2024 is placed before this Court, the same is taken on record.

¶23

It appears from perusal of the same that there is no denial in the entire instructions that before passing the order impugned any notice or opportunity is provided to the petitioner.

¶24

In this view of the matter, since the recovery order was passed without providing any notice or opportunity to the petitioner is complete violation of principles of natural justice, the order impugned dated 26.04.2023 passed by the respondent no.4 namely District Level Pay Fixation Committee, District Aligarh as well as the letter dated 18.07.2023 sent by the Respondent no.4 are liable to set aside and are hereby set aside.

¶25

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed.

¶26

It is made clear that this order will not restrained the respondents to pass a fresh order in the matter against the petitioner, if so advised.?

¶27

It is admitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed the amount deducted towards wrongful fixation has already been paid to the appellant. However, there is no fresh order passed with regard to correct fixation of salary. The writ petition, accordingly, came to be filed with the prayer to direct the authorities to revise the basic pay of the petitioner and to release him pension as per his entitlement alongwith interest. The second prayer was for return of the amount of Rs.5,52,038.00/-. This amount has already been returned to the appellant and, therefore, prayer clause (ii) has lost its efficacy. However, the representation of the petitioner in respect of pay fixation as well as release of salary did merit consideration. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that contempt petition since is pending, therefore, fresh claim need not be examined cannot be approved of in view of the fact that the Contempt Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the original order passed in writ which is confined to the aspect of recovery. The claim for correct fixation of salary as well as release of retiral benefits including pension is an independent cause which did merit consideration.

¶28

In that view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.3.2025 and dispose of the special appeal with a direction upon the District Level Pay Fixation Committee i.e.

¶29

WRIA No. 5931 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

respondent no.3 to correctly fix the petitioner?s pay scale and based upon such fixation to release the pension as per appellant?s entitlement. The third respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months and the grievance relating to correct fixation of pension as well as release of arrears etc. would also be addressed within a further period of two months, thereafter. "

¶32

From perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the amount, which was recovered from the salary of the petitioner after his retirement was returned to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court as quoted above, the District Level Pay Fixation Committee was constituted and again taken a decision on 26.07.2025 in which again it is stated that petitioner was wrongly paid Rs.62,200/- at the time of retirement and it should be Rs.58,600/-, copy of which is appended at page-19 to the writ petition.

¶33

It is argued that once the amount which has been wholly illegally recovered from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner namely Rs.5,52,038/- has been returned to the petitioner meaning thereby respondents are of the opinion that re-fixation of the petitioner was bad in the eyes of law hence petitioner became entitled for the pension treating his last salary drawn as Rs.62,200/- but for the reasons best known to the aforesaid committee, which was duly approved by the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad vide order dated 26.07.2025, a decision was taken that petitioner is entitled for the last pay drawn as Rs.58,600/- in place of Rs.62,200/-.

¶34

After going through the aforesaid, the Court is more than satisfied that the decision taken by the District Level Pay Fixation Committee, which was approved by the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad is not only illegal but also contemptuous in nature.

¶35

In this view of the matter, Superintendent of Police, Firozabad is directed to file his personal affidavit that under what circumstances the decision taken by the District Level Pay Fixation Committee was approved by him and why it is again stated that the petitioner is entitled for pay on 01.07.2022 of Rs.58,600/-, which in the opinion of the Court is not only illegal but also in complete violation of the judgement and order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Special Appeal No.295 of 2025 as quoted

¶36

WRIA No. 5931 of 2026

¶37

4

¶38

above. The personal affidavit be filed by him by 12.05.2026.

¶39

Put up as fresh on 12.05.2026.

¶40

Since Mr. M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel/learned Additional Advocate General is present in the Court, he is directed to assist the Court when the matter is next listed. Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel will assist him on the next date fixed in the matter.

¶41

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶42

April 24, 2026

¶43

Pramod Tripathi

¶44

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

Dhyan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhyan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Durgawati Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dhruvram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Panjab Singh vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Puneet Maurya and Another vs Union of India and 3 Others

Rajpal Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Babu Verma vs State of Up and 2 Others