# Aniruddh Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1404
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-30
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8771 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aniruddh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52503
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Re-fixation of salary after
retirement - Recovery of Rs. 5,68,082/- -
Permissibility - Government Order dated
16.01.2007
permit
the
employer
to
examine the last 34 months period of an
employee after his retirement for refixation of salary - Violation thereof -
Effect - High Court found the impugned
recovery
order
in
violation
of
the
instructions being issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case - Held,
re-fixation of salary beyond the period of
34 months not permissible in view of the
Government Order dated 16.01.2007 -
Sushil Kumar Singhal's case relied upon
(Para 11)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 9 ILRA 1404
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 8771 of 2024

Aniruddh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner
Ravi Singh, Raghvendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Re-fixation of salary after
retirement - Recovery of Rs. 5,68,082/- -
Permissibility - Government Order dated
16.01.2007
permit
the
employer
to
examine the last 34 months period of an
employee after his retirement for refixation of salary - Violation thereof -
Effect - High Court found the impugned
recovery
order
in
violation
of
the
instructions being issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case - Held,
re-fixation of salary beyond the period of
34 months not permissible in view of the
Government Order dated 16.01.2007 -
Sushil Kumar Singhal's case relied upon
(Para 11)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Punj. & ors. Vs Rafiq Masih & ors.;
(2005) 4 SSC 334

2. High Court of Punj. and Har. & ors.Vs Jagdev
Singh; (2014) 16 SCC 267

3. Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs Pramukh Sachiv
Irrigation Department & ors.; (2014) 16 SCC
444
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani
Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing
Counsel.

2. By means of the present petition,
the petitioner has prayed the following
main reliefs:

"I. To issue a writ, order or
direction of or in the nature of certiorari,
thereby
quashing
the
order
dated
06.09.2024, contained in Annexure No. 1 to
this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or
direction of or in the nature of certiorari,
thereby
quashing
the
order
dated
07.09.2024, contained in Annexure No. 2 to
this writ petition.

III. To issue a writ, order or
direction of or in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to recover
any
amount
from
the
petitioner
in
pursuance of impugned orders 06.09.2024
& 07.09.2024, contained in Annexure No. 1
& 2 to this writ petition.

IV. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to release her
entire post retiral dues including pension,
gratuity, leave encashment within the
period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that the petitioner has retired
from the post of Senior Assistant from the
office of Deputy Director Agriculture,
Barabanki on 31.07.2024. The aforesaid
post comes within the purview of Class--III
post. After his retirement, the impugned
order dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure No. 1)
has been passed re-fixing the salary and
9 All. Aniruddh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1405
Pay-Grade
of
the
petitioner
w.e.f.
01.07.2006. On account of re-fixation of
salary of the sum of Rs.5,68,082/- has been
directed to be recovered from the petitioner
vide order dated 07.09.2024 (as contained
in Annexure No.2).

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has assailed the aforesaid
inaction on the ground that in view of
the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
re; State of Punjab and Others Vs.
Rafiq Masih and Others (2005) 4 SSC
334, no such recovery may be executed
from a Class III employee at the fag end
of retirement or after retirement in the
name of access amount being paid when
the employee was in service.

5. Sri Ravi Singh has also
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court
has clarified the dictum in re; High
Court of Punjab and Haryana and
Other Vs. Jagdev Singh (2014) 16
SCC 267 and in State of Punjab and
Others Vs. Rafiq Masih and Others
(supra) to the extent that if at the time
of
making
access
payment,
any
undertaking has been received from the
employee,
such
recovery
may
be
executed but in the present case no such
undertaking has been received from the
petitioner when the benefit of pay-grade
etc. was provided to the petitioner.

6. He has also submitted that
before passing the impugned order, no
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner.

7. Sri Ravi Singh has further
submitted that in view of the policy of
the State Government itself pursuant to
the
Government
Order
dated
16.01.2007, the employer may examine
the last 34 months period of an
employee after his retirement for refixation of salary etc but in the present
case, such re-fixation has been carried
out w.e.f. 01.07.2006.

8. The aforesaid Government
Order
dated
16.01.2007
has
been
approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
re;
Sushil
Kumar
Singhal
Vs.
Pramukh
Sachiv
Irrigation
Department and Others (2014) 16
SCC 444.

9. Therefore, the impugned orders
are
patently
illegal,
arbitrary,
discriminatory and uncalled for in view
of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in
re; State of Punjab and Others Vs.
Rafiq Masih and Others (supra) and
Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh
Sachiv Irrigation Department and
Others (supra).

10. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh
Rathore tried to defend the impugned
orders butt has submitted that undisputedly
the petitioner retired from Class III post an
impugned exercise of re-fixation of salary
and pay-grad etc. as well as the direction
for recovery has been passed after his
retirement, therefore, appropriate order
may be passed.

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
on record, since the petitioner retired from
Class III post and impugned recovery
direction/ order has been passed after his
retirement, therefore, such impugned order
is in violation of the instructions being
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re;
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq
Masih and Others (supra). Besides, the
period for re-fixation of salary which has
1406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been considered is beyond 34 months,
therefore, in view of the Government Order
dated 16.01.2007 and also in view of the
dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sushil
Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv
Irrigation
Department
and
Others
(supra), such re-fixation may not be
permitted in the eyes of law. Since no
recital has been given regarding any
undertaking at the time of making access
payment to the petitioner, therefore, in
view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court
in re; High Court of Punjab and
Haryana and Other Vs. Jagdev Singh
(supra)
such
recovery
may
not
be
permitted.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
Consequently,
the
impugned
orders dated 06.09.2024 (contained in
Annexure
No.
1)
and
07.09.2024
(contained in Annexure No. 2) are hereby
set aside/ quashed.

13. The opposite parties are further
directed to release the entire service
benefits of the petitioner including pension,
gratuity, leave encashment and other
applicable
benefits,
with
expedition,
preferably within a period of six weeks
from the receipt of certified copy of the
order of this Court, provided the petitioner
has completed all required formalities,
failing which the petitioner would be
entitled for the interest @ 8% per annum on
delayed payment.

14. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the writ petition is allowed.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1406
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ -A No. 39076 of 2015

Heeraman Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Sanjeev Singh, Sujeet
Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - claim for compassionate
appointment-rejected-father's
post
as
Sahyogi to the Collection Amin was
abolished upon his death-Uttar Pradesh
Co-operative Collection Fund and the
Amins and other Staff Service Rules,
2002-Rule 5-rules have statutory forceframed by the Governor-Section 130 read
with Section 92(A) and Section 92(B) of
the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965deceased employee-government servantpost's abolition did not preclude offering a
compassionate appointment on a suitable
Group 'D' post-rejection order quasheddirection
to
grant
compassionate
appointment-petition allowed. (paras 10,
12, 14, 15 and 16)

HELD:
Rule 5 clearly stipulates that strength of service
of each category of post under the service cadre
mentioned under the Rules would be with prior
approval of the Government. The rules that
have been framed by the Governor taking aid to
the provision as contained under Section 130
read with Section 92(A) and Section 92(B) of
the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, are
definitely having statutory force. Number of
posts of Sahyogi to the Amin are prescribed to
be 90 in the service cadre and it appears that
immediately after rules were framed and
brought into force, the Government decided to
regularize all such Sahyogis working on a
temporary basis and so resultantly the order of
confirmed appointment was issued in favour of