# Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 873
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 38906 of 2011 with 2366 of 2016
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhodhanram-upadhyay-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54323
- **Pages:** 38

## Text

_Characters 0–39,883 of 87,443. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39883 for what follows._

3 All. Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
873

18. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the
orders of the Board of Revenue and the Divisional Commissioner impugned.

19. The writ petition fails and stands dismissed.

20. The interim order dated 17.11.2016 is hereby vacated.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 873
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 38906 of 2011 with 2366 of 2016

Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of teachers of Sanskrit Institution to get the revised pay-scales as well as the pension on the
basis of revision.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Teachers in Sanskrit Institutions - Salary on revised pay-scale - Arrear of
Pension - Entitlement - GO 10.07.1998 provide that teachers of Sanskrit institutions would also
be entitled to revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, corresponding to the 5th Pay Commission
Report - GO dated 21.02.2007 also provide for pay-scale, selection pay-scale, and, promotion
pay-scale to these teachers - However, DIOS passed the impugned order directing for downward
revision of the pay-scales to the petitioners payable in term of GO dated 27.05.2004 and issued
the recovery of excess amount paid - In pursuance of direction given in earlier writ petition, the
Finance Controller's Committee also rejected the petitioner's claim - Validity challenged
Held : Findings in the impugned order that the respondents have not at all determined pay-scales based on
the re-classified Sanskrit institutions, a classification done for academic or teaching purposes and related
matters alone, are misconceived. The Government Order dated 27.05.2004 clearly fixes pay-scales for
different grades of teachers in the various classes of institutions, re-organized in terms of the Government
Order dated 07.01.1999. Conclusions to the contrary drawn by the Finance Controller's Committee, carried in
the order impugned, are perverse and based on more than one errors apparent. [Para 51]
Further held : The impugned order was passed on 17.02.2011 and there can be no cavil that when the said
order was passed by the Finance Controller's Committee, the Government Order dated 19.03.2010 was in
existence. Now, the Government Order dated 19.03.2010 extensively provides for and deals with pay-scales
for different grades of teachers in the different classes of reorganized Sanskrit institutions - There is, thus,
not even the slightest doubt that the petitioners, whether teachers in the Institution or the Principal, would be
entitled to the payscale determined for the Principal or teacher of a Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Uttar
Madhyama) in terms of the Government order dated 19.03.2010 - The impugned order dated 17.02.2011
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ought be quashed and a mandamus issued to restore the petitioners' respective salaries paid to them in
accordance with the 5th Pay Commission pursuant to the Government Order dated 27.05.2004, as revised by
the Government Order dated 19.03.2010 together with all arrears - They would be entitled to arrears of
pension on the basis of a revision. [Para 53, 57 60 and 66] (E-1)

List of Acts
UP High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971
- S. 2(b).

List of Keywords
Common cause of action, Re-organization of Sanskrit Institutions, Shastri, Acharya, Revised pay-scale, 5th Pay
Commission, Recommendation, Conventional system of education, Modification, Notional basis, Grade pay,
Downward revision of emoluments, Recovery of excess amount, Representation, Audit report, Generic
change, Educational qualification, Designation, Demonstrably unsustainable, Manifestly illegal, Misconceived,
Later day development, Notionally payable, Old classification, Reduction and determination of pension.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Finance Controller's Committee.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Chetan Chatterjee, N. I. Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents : Sharad Chandra Upadhyay

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will decide the present writ petition and connected Writ-A No. 2366 of 2016,
where the petitioners, Bodhanram Upadhyay and Bhagwat Prasad Pandey, are common to both of
them. Writ-A No.38906 of 2011 has been preferred by six writ petitioners on the basis of a
common cause of action, whereas the connected writ petition has been preferred by the two
petitioners, who are the first and the fifth petitioners in Writ-A No.38906 of 2011. Writ-A
No.38906 of 2011 involves the question of the petitioners' entitlement to salary carrying the grade
pay of Rs.5400/-, all teachers employed with Shri Dharma Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Saraiyan, District Chitrakoot. The connected writ petition involves the entitlement of the petitioners
to receive pension, worked out on the basis of salary carrying the grade pay of Rs.5400/-. Writ-A
No.38096 of 2011 has been heard as the leading case. Wherever facts, differential and specific to
the case of the petitioners in the connected writ petition are necessary to notice, those would be
mentioned. Else, facts would be noticed from the leading writ petition, common questions of facts
and law being involved.

2. The petitioners, who are six in number, are or were (in case of retirement) teachers,
employed in the Shri Dharma Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Saraiyan, District Chitrakoot, for
short, 'the Institution'. All the petitioners are teachers employed with the Institution, which is a
Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, imparting instructions to students, reading for their Purva
Madhyama or Uttar Madhyama certificates.

3. It is not in dispute, what the petitioners assert, that prior to the current re-organization of
Sanskrit institutions and colleges, vis-a-vis their institutional levels of teaching courses and
affiliating bodies, done vide Government Order dated 07.01.1999, a Government Order dated
3 All. Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
875
14.10.1974 prescribed the entire organization of Sanskrit institutions to impart instructions at
various levels of courses and other related matters. The Government Order dated 14.10.1974 did
not classify institutions teaching Sanskrit according to the levels of education imparted or the
courses taught there. Under the system, that was enforced vide Government Order dated
14.10.1974, or may be continued under it, all Sanskrit institutions could impart education right
from the Prathama or the Primary level to one that would lead to the Acharya or the postgraduate
degree. The classification of institutions under the G.O. dated 14.10.1974 was very different. It
classified all these institutions into four categories, to wit, first, second, third and the fourth
category, called in the G.O. as 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga' and 'Gha' in that order.

4. The category of a Sanskrit institution, which could impart instructions of any level, was
dependent upon the total number of enrolled students, those participating in different levels of
examinations and the total percentage of students, passing the courses, where they wrote
examinations. According to the Government Order dated 14.10.1974, the first category of Sanskrit
institutions, or the 'Ka' category, was one where there was a minimum enrollment of 40 scholars
and of them, every year 15 sat for the Shastri and the Acharya examinations. The further
requirement was that an institution to be there in the 'Ka' category, apart from matters mentioned
before, it had to have a result of 35%.

5. In the 'Kha' or the second category of Sanskrit institutions, the requirement of total
minimum enrollment was 40 scholars and amongst them, from Prathama to Acharya, 30 students
would have to sit the examinations with the condition that a minimum of 5 students wrote their
Shastri examination. It was also required that an institution of this category would have to ensure a
minimum result of 35% in the Shastri examination.

6. The third category or the 'Ga' category of institutions comprised those where the minimum
enrollment of scholars was 35, and from the Prathama to the Acharya level, at least 10 wrote their
examinations. The further requirement was the result of the institution would at least be 35% from
Purva Madhyama to Uttar Madhyama.

7. The fourth or the 'Gha' category of institutions comprised those where from the Prathama to
the Acharya, there would be a minimum enrollment of 25% scholars, and from this minimum
enrollment, at least 10 scholars reckoned from any level wrote their examinations. The further
requirement was that the result would be a minimum of 35% in the examinations.

8. The Government Order under reference further provided that category would be assigned to
an institution bearing in mind its students, examinees and result assessed over the past two years. It
was also provided that any institution, that was not already classified, would have the default
category of 'Gha' or the fourth category, and the teachers there would be remunerated according to
the said category. There were other provisions too, but apparently no further mention of the former
organization of Sanskrit institutions is necessary to the issue involved.

9. The entire setup of Sanskrit institutions was novated in terms of two Government Orders
issued in quick succession. The first was a Government Order dated 07.01.1999, followed by the
Government Order dated 12.01.1999. In terms of the Government Order dated 07.01.1999, the
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entire body of Sanskrit institutions was re-classified into three categories based on the level of
education imparted. These categories were the Sanskrit Prathamik Vidyalaya, Sanskrit Madhyamik
Vidyalaya and Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. According to the Government Order under reference, the
Sanskrit Prathamik Vidyalaya were to teach classes up to the Prathama level alone. The Sanskrit
Madhyamik Vidyalaya would teach classes either up to the Purva Madhyama level or the Uttar
Madhyama level. The Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya would exclusively teach courses leading to the
degrees of Shastri and Acharya.

10. Since under the former organization of Sanskrit institutions, they were free to teach all
level of courses, an option in the form prescribed was ordered by this G.O., asking institutions to
put in their options, saying clearly which category they were entitled to claim, and, in that regard,
the institutions would have to submit records for the past three years, giving the average strength of
students. The options submitted along with records were required to be considered by the
Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya for the assignment of an institution to a particular
category.

11. The Government Order dated 12.01.1999 endorsed the Government Order dated
07.01.1999, and, in particular, emphasized that the option letter to claim a particular category along
with a letter carrying particulars or the necessary data relating to students enrolled in an institution
would have to be submitted latest by 28.02.1999, in triplicate. It is of importance to note that these
Government Orders spelt out clearly that instructions imparted to scholars after the re-organization
of Sanskrit institutions would be 'level exclusive', to wit, an institution teaching degree and
postgraduate courses, called the Shastri and the Acharya, would be precluded from teaching the
levels of Uttar Madhyama and Purva Madhyama as well as Prathama. Likewise, the institutions
teaching Uttar Madhama and Purva Madhyama would not, after the re-organization, be entitled to
impart instructions to scholars reading for their Prathama.

12. Quite apart from the re-organization of Sanskrit institutions, there was a Government
Order dated 10.07.1998 earlier issued, which said that teachers employed in Sanskrit institutions
would be entitled to revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The said Government Order apparently
gave effect to a decision of the State Government, accepting the recommendations of the Pay
Committee constituted by them vide resolution dated 09.10.1997 to revise pay-scales for teachers
in the various educational institutions, which included, inter alia, Sanskrit institutions. The benefit
of the revision of pay-scales recommended by the Committee, or apparently, to give effect to the
recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, elaborate provisions were made by the Government
Order about the manner of revision of pay-scales. And, it is apparent that this Government Order
applied to Sanskrit institutions, besides other educational institutions. There is a schedule annexed
to the Government Order providing for revision of pay-scales to teachers of various categories, but
it mentions teachers from Inter Colleges to Primary Schools in the conventional system of
education. There is no specific mention of Sanskrit institutions in the schedule, though there is a
clear provision made for the revision of salaries to teachers of Sanskrit institutions in the body of
the Government Order. It is emphasized by the petitioners that the Government Order under
reference clearly provides that teachers of Sanskrit institutions would also be entitled to revised
pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, apparently corresponding to the 5th Pay Commission Report.
3 All. Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
877

13. A further Government Order dated 20.07.2001 was issued, saying that teachers employed
in primary and secondary level educational institutions would be entitled to revision of their payscales in accordance with the Central 5th Pay Commission Report, which would be the same as that
payable to teachers of equivalent level, serving the Central Government establishments. A schedule
was again annexed to this Government Order dated 20.07.2001, providing a corresponding further
revision of pay-scales to bring teachers in the State at par with their counterparts in the Centre. The
schedule mentioned the revised pay-scale accepted for teachers of various grades w.e.f. 01.01.1996
in the State and the corresponding revised pay-scale based on the Central Pay Commission
Recommendations. This revision also mentioned teachers in the conventional system of primary,
secondary and higher education.

14. A Government Order dated 03.09.2001 was next issued modifying the earlier Government
Order dated 20.07.2001 and another Government Order dated 08.08.2001 about the entitlement of
teachers to receive revised pay-scales as provided there; and the modification was that the revision
of pay-scale from 01.01.1996 to 30.06.2001 would be on a notional basis, with no entitlement to
payment of revised emoluments from 01.01.1996 to 30.06.2001. As a part of this Government
Order, it was provided separately that pay revision in terms of the Government Order dated
20.07.2001 would be applicable to teachers imparting education at the basic and secondary levels,
equivalent to their counterparts, serving in the Central Government establishments.

15. Apart from other things, that would be noticed later in this judgment, the revised payscales were ordered to be provided from 01.01.1996 to June, 2001 on a notional basis with the
higher pay-scales being actually payable w.e.f. 01.07.2001. This Government Order of 3rd
September, 2001 has appended to it reckoners of pay-scales for various categories of teachers that
were payable in terms of the 4th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the corresponding pay-scales
revised notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and that actually payable w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Of these, the
fourth reckoner relates to Assistant Lecturers in a Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Teachers in a
Sanskrit Vidyalaya, which evidently bears reference to a Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, as the
petitioners assert. The aforesaid reckoners relating to revised salaries for the Assistant Lecturers
(Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya) and Teachers (Sanskrit Vidyalaya) is given below:

Assistant Lecturer (Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya) and Teacher (Sanskrit Vidyalaya)

Present Pay Scale

Revised Pay Scale

5th Pay Pay Scale

1350-301440-40-1800-50-2200

4500-125-7000

5500-175-9000

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
27.5.04
Old

27.5.04
5th
P.P.
Salary
in 2007
1350
1998
100
135
540
4123
4500
5500
5500
-
6025
1380
2042
100
138
552
4212
4500
5500
5500
-
6025
1410
2087
100
141
564
4302
4500
5500
5500
-
6025
1440
2131
100
144
576
4391
4500
5500
5500
-
6025
1480
2190
100
148
592
4510
4625
5625
5500
125
6025
1520
2250
100
152
608
4630
4750
5750
5675
75
6200
1560
2309
100
156
624
4749
4750
5750
5675
75
6200
1600
2368
100
160
640
4863
4875
5875
5850
25
6375
1640
2427
100
164
656
4987
5000
6000
5850
150
6375
1680
2486
100
168
672
5106
5125
6125
6025
100
6550
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1720
2546
100
172
688
5226
5250
6250
6200
50
6725
1760
2605
100
176
704
5345
5375
6375
6375
-
6900
1800
2664
100
180
720
5464
5500
6500
6375
125
6900
1850
2738
100
185
740
5613
5625
6625
6550
75
7075
1900
2812
100
190
760
5762
5875
6875
6725
150
7250
1950
2886
100
195
780
5911
6000
7000
6900
100
7425
2000
2960
100
200
800
6060
6125
7000
6900
100
7425
2050
3034
100
205
820
6209
6250
7000
6900
100
7425
2100
3108
100
210
840
6358
6375
7125
7075
50
7600

16. In accordance with the re-structured organization of the Sanskrit Vidyalaya, as already
asserted by the petitioners, the institutions, that were now differentiated according to the level of
courses they would teach under the new system, were asked to submit their options in the
prescribed form. On the basis of the option given by the Institution, Government Order dated
03.03.2004 was issued by the State Government in the Department of Sanskrit Education,
accepting the Institution as a Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya in the district of Chitrakoot,
mentioned at serial No.6(44) of the list of institutions. There is a little cavil, therefore, that the
Institution came to be classified as a Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya. There is also an assertion that
this Institution teaches both levels of classes permissible to a Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, that
is to say, the Purva Madhyama and the Uttar Madhyama. It is pointed out by the petitioners that
whereas the Prathama, corresponds to the primary level of education in the conventional system,
and involves teaching up to Class 8, the Purva Madhyama corresponds to the High School grade
and the Uttar Madhyama to the Intermediate grade in the conventional system of education.
Though not relevant, it is pointed out that in the Mahavidyalaya, the Shastri course and degree
corresponds to the Bachelors' course and the degree under the conventional system of education,
whereas the Acharya in Sanskrit Education has its equivalence to post-graduation in the
conventional system of education.

17. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioners in paragraph No.16 of the writ petition that after
classification of the Institution as a Madhyamik Vidyalaya, they were paid salaries according to the
5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 27.05.2004 in terms of the Government Order dated 27.05.2004. There
is categorization of salaries payable to principals and teachers of institutions of various grades as
re-classified in a 'Schedule' appended to the Government Order dated 27.05.2004.

18. By a Government Order dated 18.10.2004, it was provided that institutions, which had
opted for and been classified by the Government as Mahavidyalaya, teaching Shastri and Acharya
courses, would remain affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, as it was earlier,
but institutions which opted to teach courses up to the Uttar Madhyama would be disaffiliated from
the Sampurnanand Vishwa Vidyalaya and affiliated to the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit
Shiksha Parishad. The Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, it is pointed out by the
learned Counsel for the petitioners, was established on the lines of the Uttar Pradesh Board of High
School and Intermediate Education and would be the affiliating and examining body for all schools
of the Prathama and the Madhyama level, which would include both Purva Madhyama and Uttar
Madhyama. Teachers of Sanskrit Vidyalaya, that were affiliated to the newly established Uttar
Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Board, would be entitled to revised salaries in accordance
with the 5th Pay Commission, provided they were functioning against sanctioned post in State
Aided Institutions. At this stage, taking cognizance of the predicament of teachers of Sanskrit
3 All. Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
Institutions in the matter of indifferent payment of their salaries, the Government amended the
Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'), where the definition of institutions in Section
2(b) of the Act of 1971 was amended to provide as follows:

"2. Definitions. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires. -

(b) "institution" means a recognized institution for the time being receiving maintenance
grant from the State Government and include a Sanskrit Mahavidayalaya or a Sanskrit Vidyalaya
receiving maintenance grant from the State Government.
(emphasis by Court)

19. By a Government Order dated 21.02.2007, pay-scale, selection pay-scale, and, promotion
pay-scale, were provided for teachers working in Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Sanskrit Vidyalaya
on a time bound basis in the manner that upon completion of 10 years service, selection pay-scale
would be payable, and, upon completion of 12 years service in the selection pay-scale, teachers to
the extent of 20%, with a minimum of one post, would be entitled to the payment of promotion
pay-scale.

20. A Government Order dated 19.03.2010 was issued providing for a tabulated reckoner of
revised pay-scales and grade pay for teachers of various categories employed in Sanskrit Vidyalaya
and Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. It is the petitioners' case that according to this Government Order and
the revised pay-scale mentioned therein, they are entitled to the basic pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/-
with a grade pay of Rs.4600/-, a selection grade of Rs.6500-10,500/- with grade pay of Rs.4800/-
and the promotion pay-scale of Rs.7500-12,000/- with grade pay of Rs.5400/-.

21. It is the petitioners' case that after re-organization of the Sanskrit institutions based on the
level of courses taught, the Government Order dated 18.10.2004, already alluded to, provided for
equivalence of the Purva Madhyama to the High School level and Uttar Madhyama to the
Intermediate level, and, as such, the petitioners assert that teachers, teaching in Sanskrit institutions
at these levels, were entitled to the 5th Pay Commission pay-scales at par with teachers teaching
High School and Intermediate classes under the conventional system of education. In fact,
according to the petitioners, this was the provision made for remunerating teachers of Sanskrit
institutions. They assert that they are entitled to be treated equally with their counterparts teaching
the same grade of courses in the conventional system of education in terms of the Government
Order dated 18.10.2004.

22. It is further pointed out that the Government Order dated 27.05.2004 provides for grant of
revised pay-scales to the petitioners. Actual payment of revised pay-scales were made w.e.f.
March, 2007. The petitioners have put in their demand to the State Government for the payment of
revised pay-scales w.e.f. 27.05.2004. The petitioners further say that they are, in fact, entitled to be
given revised pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, going by the recommendations of the 5th Pay
Commission and also entitled to arrears from 01.01.1996 on the basis of pay-scales provided under
the 5th Pay Commission. The Finance Controller (Education Madhyamik), U.P. directed auditing
of Sanskrit institutions and a report, which the petitioners dubbed as ex parte, was submitted
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without affording any opportunity to teachers in the Institution, including the petitioners. The audit
report was submitted on 24.03.2009.

23. This report, according to the petitioners, is founded on an arbitrary basis. It proceeds to fix
scales for the petitioners on the basis of 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga' and 'Gha' categories of Sanskrit institutions,
a classification that has been undone and substituted in terms of the Government Order dated
07.01.1999. The old categorization of 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga' and 'Gha' institutions is absolutely lost.
Nevertheless, the audit report proceeds to determine pay-scales according to the pre-reorganization
category of Sanskrit institutions in the matter of determining pay-scales for their teachers, including
the petitioners. It is averred that reference to the former categorization of the Institution for the
purpose of fixing pay-scales, the petitioners would be entitled to, as done by the audit, runs counter
to the Government Order dated 07.01.1999, which recognizes only three types of institutions on the
basis of the grade of courses taught there, to wit, the Prathama institutions teaching the primary
level, the Madhyama institutions, teaching either Purva Madhyama or both Purva and Uttar
Madhyama, and the Mahavidyalaya teaching the Shastri and the Acharya courses.

24. The Institution, where the petitioners are employed, is a Madhyamik school teaching the
Uttar Madhyama classes, including Purva Madhyama. The recommendations, according to the
petitioners, made in the audit report dated 24.03.2009 to revise downwards the petitioners' payscales on the basis of the Institution's former classification, under the 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga' and 'Gha'
categories, is ill-founded. The petitioners say that by his order dated 05.05.2009, the District
Inspector of Schools ('DIOS', for short), Chitrakoot, directed a downward revision of the pay-scales
to the petitioners payable in terms of the Government Order dated 27.05.2004. Based on the audit
report dated 24.03.2009, a further order was passed by the DIOS on 30.04.2009, directing all
Sanskrit institutions, including the Institution, to the effect that the fixation of pay for teachers done
in accordance with the Government Order dated 27.05.2004 was found anomalous. The pay
fixation upon examination has been directed to be revised and that according to the re-determined
and revised pay fixation, excess payment made would have to be recovered. About the Institution,
it was said that they did not present the requisite documents before the audit committee and they
should do it at the earliest in order to ensure pay fixation for their teachers, that is to say, the
petitioners.

25. Aggrieved by the downward revision of emoluments already fixed for the petitioners vide
Government Order dated 27.05.2004 in terms of the orders of the DIOS dated 05.05.2009 and
30.04.2009, in turn based on the audit report dated 24.03.2009, and also the recovery of excess
payment, determined in terms of these orders, the petitioners filed Writ-A No.31977 of 2009. This
Court vide an interim order dated 01.07.2009 issued notice to the respondents and stayed recovery
of the excess emoluments ordered. This writ petition was heard and decided vide an order dated
14.05.2010. The writ petition was allowed and the orders of the DIOS, impugned there, that is to
say, the ones dated 05.05.2009 and 30.04.2009 as also the audit report dated 24.03.2009, on the
basis of which the aforesaid orders were passed, were all set aside with liberty to the respondents to
pass fresh orders, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It was also provided that
one of the petitioners, under authority of all others in writing, could represent them before the audit
team or other authority. The audit team or the authority, which considers the matter, was ordered to
give detailed reasons, in case the event went against the petitioners. It was also directed that if any
3 All. Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
particular document is required, either the petitioners or the DIOS may be ordered to produce the
same. The reasoning, on the foot of which the aforesaid orders were made, figures in the judgment
of this Court dated 14.05.2010 passed in Writ-A No.31977 of 2009 in the following words:

"In para 17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents nos. 1 to 6 it has been
stated that pay scale of Rs. 5,500 -9000 is admissible to Madhyamik teachers and not for teachers
working in Sanskrit schools and Principles of Sanskrit Schools are entitled only to pay scale of Rs.
6500 - 10500 and pay scale of 7500 - 12000 is admissible only to principle of Secondary Education
School.

The assertions made in para 17 of the counter affidavit are slightly confusing. Question
of entitlement of a particular pay scale to the petitioners irrespective of G.O. dated 21.2.2007 is not
directly involved in this matter. The only thing which the petitioners are claiming is that they were
being paid the pay scale in accordance with Government order dated 21.2.2007. Accordingly the
only thing required to be decided was as to whether the pay scale which was being paid to the
petitioners was in accordance with G.O. dated 21.2.2007 or not. State authorities through counter
affidavit can not go beyond the G.O. Neither in the audit report dated 24.3.2009 nor in the counter
affidavit nor during arguments it could be clarified that what administrative order was required to
be perused by the audit team which was not produced before it as per its report.

Moreover petitioners were also not heard either during inspection or before preparation
of the audit report."

26. In compliance with the judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 passed by this Court in the
writ petition last mentioned, the first petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.01.2011 on
behalf of himself and the other writ petitioners of the last mentioned writ petition in a
representative capacity, addressed to the Finance Controller (Secondary), asserting the petitioners'
stand in the matter. In compliance with the orders of this Court, a Committee, chaired by the
Finance Controller, along with the DIOS, Chitrakoot and the Senior Accounts Officer, Directorate
of Education, Allahabad as members, was constituted to take a decision in the matter afresh as
directed. The Committee passed an order dated 17.02.2011, rejecting the petitioners' claim to the
basic pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- with a grade pay of Rs.4600/- and the promotion pay-scale of
Rs.7500-12,000/- with a grade pay of Rs.5400/- in terms of the 5th Pay Commission. Rather, the
petitioners were held entitled to emoluments in terms of the audit report dated 24.03.2009, already
set aside by this Court while passing the order of remand.

27. The audit report directed petitioner No.2, Moti Lal Tiwari, who is Principal of the
Institution, to be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10,500/-, whereas the other petitioners, who
are teachers in the Institution, a Madhyamik institution of the Uttar Madhyama level, to the payscale of Rs.5000-150-8000/-.

28. Aggrieved by the order of the Finance Controller's Committee dated 17.02.2011, the
present writ petition has been instituted.

29. Parties having exchanged affidavits, this petition was heard along with the connected writ
petition, which has been preferred by petitioner Nos.1 and 5 of the present writ petition alone. It is
about their entitlement to receive pension, worked out on the basis of the basic pay-scale payable to
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a teacher of a Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Uttar Madhyama) in terms of Government Order dated
19.03.2010, which is Rs.5500-9000/- with a grade pay of Rs.4600/- and the promotion pay-scale of
Rs.7500-12,000/- with a grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The pension claimed by the petitioners in the
connected writ petition was on the basis of the ten months' average emoluments last drawn, which
were in the pay-scale of Rs.7500-12,000/- and grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The order impugned in the
said writ petition held to the same effect as that regarding the petitioners' claim to emoluments
involved in the leading writ petition, where the basic pay-scale determined for teachers as well as
the solitary Principal of the Institution is anomalous and below that prescribed by the Government
Order dated 19.03.2010.

30. Parties have exchanged affidavits in the connected writ petition as well.

31. Heard Mr. Chetan Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sharad Chandra
Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State in both the writ petitions.

32. The issue involved in both the writ petitions is if the petitioners are entitled to the prerevised emoluments as teachers of a Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Uttar Madhyama) in the basic
pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- with a grade pay of Rs.4600/-; selection pay-scale of Rs.6500-10,500/-
with a grade pay of Rs.4800/-; and, promotion pay-scale of Rs.7500-12,000/- with a grade pay of
Rs.5400/- in terms of the Government Order dated 19.03.2010, or they are entitled to the pay-scale
of Rs.5000-8000/- as determined by the audit report dated 24.03.2009, or after revision of the payscale in terms of the Government Order dated 19.03.2010, to emoluments in the basic pay-scale of
Rs.4500-7000/- with a grade pay of Rs.4200/-; selection pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with a grade
pay of Rs.4600/-; and, promotion pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- with a grade pay of Rs.4800/-.

33. This issue is wide enough to effectively determine the entire gamut of controversy
involved in both the writ petitions. It is, however, clarified here that in case of petitioner No.2 in
the leading writ petition, who is the Principal of the Institution, pay-scales and grade pay granted
and claimed, would be different from the teachers, but based on common principles governed by
the same Government Orders relevant to the issue.

34. It is common ground between parties that the organization and classification of Sanskrit
Vidyalaya has undergone a generic change in terms of the Government Order dated 07.01.1999. It
was one set up before 07.01.1999 and a different system of organization of the Sanskrit Vidyalaya
after 07.01.1999. Broadly speaking, before 07.01.1999 under the Government Order dated
14.10.1974, all Sanskrit Vidyalaya would impart instructions to scholars in all courses of various
levels from Prathama to Acharya. They were classified into Vidyalaya of 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga', 'Gha'
categories, dependent upon the total enrollment of scholars those sitting the examinations of a
particular level or just sitting the examinations and the percentage result. The emoluments of
teachers, as it appears, were prescribed at that time according to the category of the institution, to
wit, 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga', 'Gha'. The further feature, common to all Sanskrit Vidyalaya before
07.01.1999, was that they were all affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya,
Varanasi, which was the affiliating, examining and certifying body, granting certificates and
degrees to scholars of these institutions writing different levels of examinations.
3 All. Bhodhanram Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883

35. After the Government Order dated 07.01.1999, there was a most fundamental change in
the organization of the Sanskrit Vidyalaya. The institutions were classified into three categories
alone based on the level of education imparted and the corresponding certificate or degree granted.
These categories were Sanskrit Prathamik Vidyalaya, Sanskrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya. According to the Government Order dated 07.01.1999, which was followed by the
Government Order dated 12.01.1999, the higher courses of Shastri and Acharya were completely
segregated from the lower courses taught up to Uttar Madhyama. The colleges, teaching the higher
courses of Shastri and Acharya, were to be segregated from institutions teaching up to the Uttar
Madhyama level.

36. This classification, as the Government Order dated 07.01.1999 would show, was
essentially based upon the requirement of implementing the recommendations of the State Pay
Revision Committee, 1989, whereunder the revised pay-scales payable w.e.f. 01.01.1996,
apparently made the old mixed up classification of Sanskrit institutions unsuitable and obsolete. It
was, therefore, that these institutions were segregated on the basis of the level of the course taught
and the certificate and degree conferred. We would, therefore, be minded to think that the reorganization of the Sanskrit Vidyalaya into the three categories, based on the level of the courses
taught, was brought about essentially to extend the revised pay-scales in terms of the Uttar Pradesh
Pay Revision Committee, 1989, followed by the implementation of the Central 5th Pay
Commission for teachers, teaching in the State, receiving emoluments supported by State grant
w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It would, therefore, in our opinion, be fallacious to think that the re-organized set
up of Sanskrit schools had something to do with scholarship and teaching alone with no connection
to the pay-scales that the teachers would be entitled to in the re-organized set up of Sanskrit
institutions, teaching different levels of courses. It goes without saying that the set up introduced by
the Government Order dated 07.01.1999 abolished the earlier classification of Sanskrit institutions
brought about by the Government Order dated 14.10.1974, where all levels of courses were taught
in all institutions.

37. The fact that under the re-organized set up or structure of Sanskrit institutions, based on
the level of courses taught, was just not something relating to more or better organized teaching in
the institutions, but had an intrinsic connection to the remuneration to be offered to teachers,
teaching courses of different levels, is evident from a perusal of the Government Order dated
07.01.1999, the relevant part whereof reads:

"उच्ि सशक्षा अनुभाग -2 लखनऊ- ददनांक 07 िनवरी 1999

पवषयः संपूणाथनन्द संस्कृत महापवद्यालय वाराणसी से सम्बद्ध / मान्यता प्राप्त संस्कृत
पवद्यालयों का वगीकरण।

महोदय,

उपयुथक्त पवषयक पर मुझे यह कहने का ननदेश हुआ है कक संपूणाथनन्द संस्कृत पवश्वपवद्यालय से
सम्बद्ध/ मान्यता प्राप्त तथा सहायता प्राप्त संस्कृत

पवद्यालयों का वगीकरण उनमें पढ़ाये िाने वाले पाठ्यक्रमों के स्तर के अनुसार,
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

शासनादेश संख्या 1/9(1)73-सशक्षा (3) ददनांक 14.10.74 द्वारा िार श्रेखणयों यथा प्रथम श्रेणी,
द्पवतीय श्रेणी, तृतीय श्रेणी व ितुथथ श्रेणी में वगीकृत ककया गया था। इन पवद्यालयों की इसी वगीकरण के
आधार पर इनमें ननयुक्त सशक्षकों एवं सशक्षणेत्तर कमथिाररयों के वेतनमानों का ननधाथरण ककया िा रहा है।
वेतन पुनरीक्षण ससमनत, उत्तर प्रदेश. 1989 की संस्तुनतयों पर ककये गये ननणथयानुसार इन सहायता प्राप्त
संस्कृत पाठशालाओं में शैक्षक्षक पदों पर ददनांक 01.01.96 से पुनरीक्षक्षत वेतनमानों की स्वीकृनत शासनादेश
संख्या 15/15-8-98/3072(100)91, ददनांक 15-3-1992 द्वारा प्रदान की गयी थी। इन वेतनमानों का
01.01.96 से पुनः परीक्षण शासनादेश संख्या बे0आ0-2/1007/दस-17-िी-98 ददनांक 10.07.98 द्वारा ददया
गया। उक्त वगीकरण के अलावा संपूणाथनन्द संस्कृत पवश्वपवद्यालय की पररननयमावली में भी संस्कृत
पवद्यालयों को स्नातकोततर उपाचध महापवद्यलाय उपाचध महापवद्यलाय, उत्तर माध्यसमक पवद्यलाय तथा
पूवथ माध्यसमक पवद्यालय में वगीकृत ककया गया।

2.