# Arun Pratap Srivastava v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 510
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 25277 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-pratap-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53584
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
Whether after the employee has attained the
age of superannuation, correction in the pay
scale should be considered beyond the period of
34 months?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Petitioner, who has retired on
31st March, 2017 as Senior Assistant from the
office of District Magistrate, Varanasi, is aggrieved by
the order dated 15th May, 2017 passed by the
Collector, Varanasi disputing the grade pay of
Rs.4600 with an additional one increment given to
the petitioner on 22nd December, 2011 reducing his
pay to Rs.50,500/- on the date of his superannuation
as against Rs.52,000/- as per the chart issued from
the office of Collector, Varanasi under his signature.
(Para 2)

The order impugned is found to be absolutely silent
as to any opportunity being afforded to the petitioner
to offer his explanation qua the proposed action of
correction in the pay grade. The order simply records
that petitioner's pay fixation and pay grade Rs.4600/-
along with additional increment was malicious and
hence deserved correction. (Para 8)

B. GO dated 16th January, 2007 is very
specific on the point that after the
employee
has
attained
the
age
of
7 All. Arun Pratap Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
511
superannuation, no such correction in the
pay scale should be considered beyond the
period of 34 months. (Para 9)

Since the Government has itself laid down the
principle that no such correction can be
permitted beyond the period of 34 months after
the
employee
has
attained
the
age
of
superannuation and, therefore, in this case, any
correction in the pay grade awarded to the
petitioner in the 2017 would definitely amount
to the altering the pay grade beyond the period
of 34 months. (Para 10)

C. Upon a bare reading the aforesaid letter cum
order issued by the Additional Director, Treasury
and Pension, Varanasi dated 16th March, 2017 it
becomes absolutely clear that there was no
application of mind by the authorities
concerned and this was being done only
when the pension papers were being
finalized. (Para 12)

D. Any action that results in adverse civil
consequences and that too when it is
attributable to alleged malicious exercise,
it must be pre-visited with a notice to the
concerned employee to give him an
opportunity to offer his explanation and
hence on the touchstone of the principles of
natural justice the order dated 15th May, 2017
directing for pay correction of the petitioner's
pay grade and pay scale cannot be sustained in
law.
Such
an
action,
therefore,
automatically has got rendered arbitrary
and so also hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution. (Para 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv
Irrigation Department and others, 2014 (16)
SCC 444 (Para 4)

List of Keywords
Service Law; increment; superanuation.

## Text

510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with supplementary counter affidavit wherein
all the allegations were dealt in detail as well as
that despite petitioner was called to appear in
person to access documents and informed by
the registered post, however, it is specifically
noted that petitioner has not appeared.

19. Court also takes note that in regard to
allegations of embezzlement, specific finding
was returned in resolution so adopted and that
petitioner has not deposited money on many
occasions and due to misconduct of petitioner,
respondents have suffered financial loss, a very
serious misconduct. (See State Bank of India
vs. Naveen Kumar Sinha, 2024 INSC 874)

20. It is also well settled that inquiry
initiated before retirement may continue even
after retirement of delinquent as well as in
present case, a liberty was granted by the Court
vide an order passed in earlier round of
litigation, money collected from Members after
issuing receipts was not deposited. Lesser
money was shown in account balance. The
period of embezzlement runs for many years.
Details of embezzlement are mentioned in
earlier part of the judgment. The petitioner has
submitted vague averments which are not
sufficient to contradict the findings.

21. In aforesaid circumstances and taking
note of State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra
Singh (supra), since there is no procedural
error in the process of disciplinary proceedings,
principles of natural justice were followed,
direction given vide order dated 26.07.2010
passed by this Court were also followed as well
as that the petitioner has not appeared despite
repeated opportunities to access the documents
as well as specific reasons are assigned in the
proposal adopted in regard to various acts of
embezzlement, therefore, no circumstances
exist to interfere with the impugned order as
well as Court also takes note that allegations are
of financial embezzlement which has caused
huge financial loss to respondents, therefore,
punishment of dismissal from service is also not
shockingly disproportionate.

22.
Accordingly,
writ
petition
is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 510
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 25277 of 2018

Arun Pratap Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avanish Kumar Upadhyay, Raj Kumar
Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
Whether after the employee has attained the
age of superannuation, correction in the pay
scale should be considered beyond the period of
34 months?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Petitioner, who has retired on
31st March, 2017 as Senior Assistant from the
office of District Magistrate, Varanasi, is aggrieved by
the order dated 15th May, 2017 passed by the
Collector, Varanasi disputing the grade pay of
Rs.4600 with an additional one increment given to
the petitioner on 22nd December, 2011 reducing his
pay to Rs.50,500/- on the date of his superannuation
as against Rs.52,000/- as per the chart issued from
the office of Collector, Varanasi under his signature.
(Para 2)

The order impugned is found to be absolutely silent
as to any opportunity being afforded to the petitioner
to offer his explanation qua the proposed action of
correction in the pay grade. The order simply records
that petitioner's pay fixation and pay grade Rs.4600/-
along with additional increment was malicious and
hence deserved correction. (Para 8)

B. GO dated 16th January, 2007 is very
specific on the point that after the
employee
has
attained
the
age
of
7 All. Arun Pratap Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
511
superannuation, no such correction in the
pay scale should be considered beyond the
period of 34 months. (Para 9)

Since the Government has itself laid down the
principle that no such correction can be
permitted beyond the period of 34 months after
the
employee
has
attained
the
age
of
superannuation and, therefore, in this case, any
correction in the pay grade awarded to the
petitioner in the 2017 would definitely amount
to the altering the pay grade beyond the period
of 34 months. (Para 10)

C. Upon a bare reading the aforesaid letter cum
order issued by the Additional Director, Treasury
and Pension, Varanasi dated 16th March, 2017 it
becomes absolutely clear that there was no
application of mind by the authorities
concerned and this was being done only
when the pension papers were being
finalized. (Para 12)

D. Any action that results in adverse civil
consequences and that too when it is
attributable to alleged malicious exercise,
it must be pre-visited with a notice to the
concerned employee to give him an
opportunity to offer his explanation and
hence on the touchstone of the principles of
natural justice the order dated 15th May, 2017
directing for pay correction of the petitioner's
pay grade and pay scale cannot be sustained in
law.
Such
an
action,
therefore,
automatically has got rendered arbitrary
and so also hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution. (Para 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv
Irrigation Department and others, 2014 (16)
SCC 444 (Para 4)

List of Keywords
Service Law; increment; superanuation.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner, who has retired on 31st
March, 2017 as Senior Assistant from the
office of District Magistrate, Varanasi, is
aggrieved by the order dated 15th May,
2017 passed by the Collector, Varanasi
disputing the grade pay of Rs.4600 with an
additional one increament given to the
petitioner
on
22nd
December,
2011
reducing his pay to Rs.50,500/- on the date
of
his
superannuation
as
against
Rs.52,000/- as per the chart issued from the
office of Collector, Varanasi under his
signature and appended as Annexure - 13 to
the writ petition.

3. Two fold arguments have been
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner:

(a). Such back date correction in
the pay grade could not have been done by
the respondents in view of the provisions as
contained under the Government order
dated 16th January, 2007, which only
permits any correction in matter of pay
fixation up to 34 months prior to the date of
retirement; and

(b). The order impugned has been
passed after the petitioner attained the age
of superannuation and that too without
giving any notice much less a show cause
notice and hence order has rendered
unsustainable for want of compliance of
principles of natural justice.

4. In support of first point learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the authority of Supreme Court in the case
of Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh
Sachiv
Irrigation
Department
and
others, 2014 (16) SCC 444.
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. A counter affidavit has been filed in
the
matter
on
behalf
of
the
State
respondents in which plea has been taken
vide paragraph 3 that in terms of the
Government order dated 8th December,
2008 only fresh appointee was entitled to
grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band of
Rs.12540 totalling to Rs.17140 as on 1st
January, 2006 and since petitioner had
already been in service as on 8th
December, 2008, he could not have been
given benefit under such Government
order.

6. A further plea has been taken vide
paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that
order
under
challenge
was
only
a
consequential
order
as
by
way
of
information given to the petitioner on the
basis some letter issued on 16th March,
2017 by Additional Director, Treasury and
Pension, Varanasi, which formed the basis
to examine original records and also
consideration of letter written by the
petitioner dated 14th June, 2017. The letter
was taken into consideration and records
were further thoroughly examined and a
detailed report was submitted on 18th May,
2018. He has placed before the Court the
letter of the Additional Director, Treasury
and Pension, Varanasi dated 16th March,
2017 brought on record as Annexure - 11 to
the writ petition as well as the report dated
18th May, 2018 brought on record as
Annexure - 17 to the writ petition.

7. It is next argued by learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel that an
employee is entitled to pay scale and pay
grade assigned for the post in question and
for any wrongful pay fixation, a mistake
due to inadvertence, he cannot walk away
with the higher pay scale as ultimately it is
a loss caused to public exchequer and
nobody
stands
any
disadvantageous
position for any correction of pay scale if
carried out rightfully. However, as far as
Government order as well as judgment of
Supreme Court is concerned, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits
that these are the question of law that can
be examined and the matter can be
disposed of in the light of the authorities
cited and testing upon the same the
pleadings raised by the respective parties in
this case.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, I find the order impugned to be
absolutely silent as to any opportunity
being afforded to the petitioner to offer his
explanation qua the proposed action of
correction in the pay grade. The order
simply records that petitioner's pay fixation
and pay grade Rs.4600/- along with
additional increment was malicious and
hence deserved correction.

9. Insofar as the first point raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned that no such correction could
have been ordered in the pay scale of the
petitioner altering the pay grade back from
the year 2011 in the light of the
Government order dated 16th January,
2007, I find substance in the argument so
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner for the reason that Government
order is very specific on the point that after
the employee has attained the age of
superannuation, no such correction should
be considered beyond the period of 34
months. Relevant part of the Government
order
dated
16th
January,
2007
is
reproduced hereunder:

"4. िासि के उपरान्द्त आदेि अभी तक प्रभावी है
परन्द्तु सन्द्दवभषत िासिादेि वदिााँक 05 वदसम्बर, 2001 में वदये गये
विदेिों को देखते हुए पेंिि प्रावधकताष अवधकारी वदिााँक 01-01-
7 All. Arun Pratap Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
513
86 से पुिरीवक्षत वेतिमािों में वेति विधाषरण तक की जााँच भी करिे
लगे हैं, वजससे पेंिि प्रावधकार-पत् विगषत करिे में ववलम्ब होता है।
अतः इस सम्बन्द्ध में सम्यक ववचारोपरान्द्त राज्यपाल महोदय द्वारा
विम्िांवकत आदेि प्रदाि वकये गये हैंः-

(1) उक्त सन्द्दवभषत िासिादेि वदिांक 13 वदसम्बर
1977 के उपरोक्त प्रावधाि के ही अिुसार पेंिि स्वीकताष
अवधकारी द्वारा पेंिि स्वीकृवत हेतु सेवाविवृवत्त की तारीख से 10
माह पूवष की पररलवब्धयााँ तथा उसके 02 वर्ष पूवष अथाषत कुल 34
महीिे का ररकाडष ही देखा जायेगा।

(2) पेंिि स्वीकताष अवधकारी का वकसी कमषचारी
के सेवाकाल में वेति के विधाषरण में त्ुवट को ठीक करािे का दावयत्व
उपरोक्त (1) में विधाषररत सीमा से अवधक िहीं होगा। वेति-विधाषरण
की त्ुवटयों को कमषचारी के सेवारत रहते हुए ही सामान्द्य
जााँच/आवडट के माध्यम से दूर वकये जािे की व्यवस्था को प्रभावी
ढंग से लागू वकया जाए।"

10.
The
interpretation
of
the
Government order was done by the
Supreme Court in its judgment of Sushil
Kumar Singhal (supra), in which Supreme
Court
has
observed
that
since
the
Government has itself laid down the
principle that no such correction can be
permitted beyond the period of 34 months
after the employee has attained the age of
superannuation and, therefore, applying the
said principle in this case I also find that
any correction in the pay grade awarded to
the petitioner in the 2017 would definitely
amount to the altering the pay grade
beyond the period of 34 months. The
relevant part of the judgment of Supreme
Court is reproduced hereunder:

"11. The submission made on
behalf of the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent that the appellant would be
getting more amount than what he was
entitled to cannot be accepted in view of
the policy laid down by the Government in
G.O. dated 16th January, 2007. If the
Government
feels
that
mistakes
are
committed very often, it would be open to
the Government to change its policy but as
far as the G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 is
in force, the respondent-employer could not
have passed any order for recovery of the
excess salary paid to the appellant or for
reducing pension of the appellant."

11. Insofar as the argument advanced
by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel that the order was passed by the
competent authority citing the infirmity in
the pay grade awarded to the petitioner in
the year 2017 vide order dated 16th March,
2017, does not disclose any reason, I find
that the order only refers to certain dates
and pay grades but does not record any
reasons as to why such award of pay grade
was bad or was malicious. The order dated
16th March, 2017 is reproduced hereunder:

"सेवा में,

 वदिााँक- 16.03.2017

कायाषलयाध्यक्ष

कलेतरेटरेट वाराणसी, वाराणसी

ववर्य- श्री अरुण प्रताप श्रीवास्तव (जीएयू-
67982), जे ए वाराणसी के पेंिि प्रकरण के सम्बन्द्ध में।

महोदय,

श्री अरुण प्रताप श्रीवास्तव (जीएयू-
67982), जे ए वाराणसी के पेंिि प्रपत् तथा सेवा पुवस्तका जााँच
में विम्ि कवमयां पायी गयी है-

आबजेतिि-

 बाई-िरेन्द्र िाथ यादव

(60401)
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1- ई पेंिि फामष में ववभाग का िाम मेवडकल
कालेज अम्बेडकर िगर अंवकत काया जािा त्ुवट पूणष है,

2- ई पेंिि फामष में सेवा प्रारम्भ की वतवथ 16 य
03 य 1984 के स्थाि पर 18 य 07 य 1980 अंवकत वकया
जािा त्ुवट पूणष है,

3- श्रीवास्तव का वेति वदिााँक-22.12.2011
को उच्चीकृत ग्रेड पे 4600 में एक वेति वृवि का लाभ अिुमन्द्य
करते हुए वेति विधाषररत वकया जािा त्ुवट पूणष है, त्ुवट सुधार कर
आवश्यक कायषवाही करें।

4- ई पेंिि फामष के एिेतसर 4 पर ववविष्ट-4
उपयुक्त िहीं है।

भवदीय

अपर/विदेिक, कोर्ागार एवं पेंिि

वाराणसी, उत्तर प्रदेि "

12. Upon a bare reading the aforesaid
letter cum order issued by the Additional
Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi
dated 16th March, 2017 it becomes
absolutely
clear
that
there
was
no
application of mind by the authorities
concerned and this was being done only
when the pension papers were being
finalized.

13. This kind of conduct amounts
malice in law because it has set into motion
an inquiry into the pay grade awarded to
the petitioner which was not at all required
without there being any plausible reasons
or explanation offered in the letter.

14. The authority sub-ordinate to the
Additional Director, Treasury and Pension,
Varanasi immediately acted upon the letter
and submitted a report regarding incorrect
pay fixation. The report only refers to the
letter dated 16th March, 2017 and then
records same pay grade and pay scale
which according to the report petitioner
deserved and which is verbatim the
contents of the order impugned. The
relevant part of the report dated 18th May,
2018 is reproduced hereunder:

"(3) श्री अरूण कुमार श्रीवास्तव, से०वि० वररष्ठ
सहायक,

इिकी वियुवक्त वद०- 163/85 को हुई है। वद०
26-02-1993 को पदोन्द्िवत वररष्ठ वलवपक के पद पर हुई है।
इिकी सेवा पुवस्तका के पृष्ठ (22) पर चस्पा अपर विदेिक,
कोर्ागार एवं पेंिि वाराणसी मण्डल वाराणसी के पत् सं० 649
वद०-16-03-2017 के अिुपालि में वद०-22-12-2011 से
वेति का संिोधि का विधाषरण वकया गया है जो इस प्रकार है-

अववध

वेति

वद० 22-122011

12120+4600 =

16720

वद०01-072012
12630+4600 =

17230

वद०01-072013

13150+4600 =

17750

वद० 01-072014

13690+4600 =

18290

वद० 01-072015

14240+4600 =

18840

पुिरीवक्षत वेति 1-1-2016 - 49000

1-7-2016
-
50500"
7 All. Jag Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
515
15. From the perusal of the
aforesaid report it is clearly established that
there has been no application of mind at all.

16. In the considered view of the
Court, any action that results in adverse
civil consequences and that too when it is
attributable to alleged malicious exercise, it
must be pre-visited with a notice to the
concerned employee to give him an
opportunity to offer his explanation and
hence on the touchstone of the principles of
natural justice the order dated 15th May,
2017 directing for pay correction of the
petitioner's pay grade and pay scale cannot
be sustained in law. Such an action,
therefore, automatically has got rendered
arbitrary and so also hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution. The second submission is also
liable to be upheld and is hereby upheld.

17. In view of the above, therefore,
the
correction
of
pay
grade
and
consequential pay scale of the petition with
effect from 2011 under the order impugned
cannot be sustained in law. The order dated
24th July, 2018 is, accordingly, hereby
quashed. Petitioner's pay grade and pay
scale stands restored as were prior to
correction. Petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits accordingly and
payment of difference of pension between
what he has been paid and what he ought to
have been paid taking his final pay at the
time of retirement as Rs.52,000/- with basic
pay of Rs.12540 in the grade pay of
Rs.4600 totalling to Rs.17,140/- as basic
pay, shall be made.

18.
The
difference
shall
be
computed and arrears shall be paid to the
petitioner within a maximum period of two
months and any delay in such payment
would result in accrual of interest at the
rate of 12% from the date of expiry of the
two months of presentation of certified
copy of this order till the actual payment is
made.

19. The writ petition is succeed and
is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 515
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 26097 of 2018

Jag Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Satyendra Chandra
Tripathi, Shiv Poojan Yadav, Sunil Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Chandra Bhan Singh, Pankaj
Srivastava, S.C., Satish Chaturvedi
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the challenge of the
departmental punishment of dismissal from
service imposed on the petitioner (a bank
cashier) by the State Bank of India after an
inquiry, on the ground that the disciplinary
authority's findings were based solely on the
petitioner's alleged confessional statement made
to the Police during criminal investigation and
therefore constituted a case of no evidence.

Headnotes
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - S.4(6)(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, SS.
319,161 - Service Law - Disciplinary
Proceedings - Standard of proof - Sole
reliance on Police statement/Confession -
"No Evidence" Test - Preponderance of
probability - Confessional statement
before Police cannot by itself form basis
for
punishment-requirement
of