# Devendra Singh v. Chairman State Cane Service Auth. Lko/Cane Comm. U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 707
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 23008 of 2015
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-v-chairman-state-cane-service-auth-lko-cane-comm-u-p-ors-45506
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Payment of Salary - The
issue involved in this petition is about payment
of salary to the petitioner, a part-time clerk with
the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana,
District - Hapur, in accordance with the
recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
(Para 4)

The validity of an order under challenge
before the Court can be judged by the
reasons that it carries. Nothing can be added
to the reasons, on which the impugned order is
founded by way of affidavits, much less
submissions made during the hearing. (Para 11)

Court observed that the sole reason assigned by
the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow to pass
the order impugned, declining the petitioner's
claim is the non-submission of a proposal to
implement
the
6th
Pay
Commission
recommendation by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. The claim has
been declined with a remark that as and when
the said proposal is received, a decision to
implement it would be taken. It was found that
a
proposal
(dated
10.02.2011)
by
the
Cooperative Societies, Dhaulana has already
been made, which ought not only be available
with the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow,
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
but also with the Managing Director, U.P.
Cooperative
Cane
Union
Federation
Ltd.,
Lucknow. The impugned order was passed,
ignoring the proposal dated 10.2.2011. (Para 8)

The petitioner in the present case has
reportedly retired. Therefore, it was held that in
case a decision to implement the 6th Pay
Commission were to be taken and the
petitioner's claim considered, he would be
entitled
to
revised
pay-scale
from
an
appropriate date and also revision of his postretiral benefits. (Para 13)

Writ Petition allowed in part. Matter
remitted. (E-2)

Precedent distinguished:

## Text

12 All. Devendra Singh Vs. Chairman State Cane Service Auth. Lko/Cane Comm. U.P. & Ors. 707
6.3.2020 attaching the petitioner from
Gorakhpur to Mumbai is very harsh and not
sustainable. It is not necessary that in every
case
of
suspension,
the
delinquent
employee is to be attached to a place other
than the place of his current posting and if
there is any such necessity to replace the
delinquent employee from the place of
posting of which the enquiry has been
initiated, then the attachment should be at
nearest place from where the delinquent
employee could participate in the inquiry
proceedings. Attaching the petitioner at
Mumbai from Gorakhpur and the inquiry is
to be conducted at Gorakhpur is an
arbitrary exercise of power by Opposite
party No.1.

9. It may be observed where the
authorities find it necessary to attach a
suspended delinquent outside the district of
his current posting it would be better to
kept in mind that the attachment is not
made at a place which itself may appear to
be kind of punishment and oppressive. And
it may also generally be bore in mind that
the delinquent may be able to conveniently
attend the place where enquiry is to be held
and not at a place where it may become
difficult
for
delinquent
to
properly
participate and defend himself in the
enquiry proceedings.

10. Under these circumstances, the
impugned order dated 6.3.2020 is hereby
quashed to the limited extent of attachment
of the petitioner at Mumbai. It will be open
to Opposite Party No.1 to pass an order of
attachment of the petitioner at near
Gorakhpur district keeping in view the
observation made above.

11. With the observation made
hereinabove, the Writ Petition is Allowed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A707
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2020

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 23008 of 2015

Devendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman State Cane Service Auth. Lko/Cane
Comm. U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rishi Kant Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ravindra Singh

A. Service Law - Payment of Salary - The
issue involved in this petition is about payment
of salary to the petitioner, a part-time clerk with
the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana,
District - Hapur, in accordance with the
recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
(Para 4)

The validity of an order under challenge
before the Court can be judged by the
reasons that it carries. Nothing can be added
to the reasons, on which the impugned order is
founded by way of affidavits, much less
submissions made during the hearing. (Para 11)

Court observed that the sole reason assigned by
the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow to pass
the order impugned, declining the petitioner's
claim is the non-submission of a proposal to
implement
the
6th
Pay
Commission
recommendation by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. The claim has
been declined with a remark that as and when
the said proposal is received, a decision to
implement it would be taken. It was found that
a
proposal
(dated
10.02.2011)
by
the
Cooperative Societies, Dhaulana has already
been made, which ought not only be available
with the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow,
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
but also with the Managing Director, U.P.
Cooperative
Cane
Union
Federation
Ltd.,
Lucknow. The impugned order was passed,
ignoring the proposal dated 10.2.2011. (Para 8)

The petitioner in the present case has
reportedly retired. Therefore, it was held that in
case a decision to implement the 6th Pay
Commission were to be taken and the
petitioner's claim considered, he would be
entitled
to
revised
pay-scale
from
an
appropriate date and also revision of his postretiral benefits. (Para 13)

Writ Petition allowed in part. Matter
remitted. (E-2)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Jay Narayan Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. & ors., WritA No. 22820 of 2011, decided on 26.02.2020
(Para 7, 9, 11, 12)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
09.03.2015,
passed
by
the
Cane
Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow.

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

1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged in this case.

2. Admit.

3. Heard Mr. Rishi Kant Singh,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents.

4. The issue involved in this petition
is about payment of salary to the petitioner,
a part-time clerk with the Sahkari Ganna
Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, District -
Hapur,
in
accordance
with
the
recommendations
of
the
6th
Pay
Commission. It appears that the other Cane
Cooperative Societies like the Sahkari
Ganna
Vikas
Samiti
Ltd.
Syana,
Bulandshahar and the Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti Ltd., Modinagar have been granted
benefit of the 6th Pay Commission, where
two of their employees are receiving
salaries in accordance with pay-scales
prescribed under the 6th Pay Commission.
The two employees, that is to say, Sunil
Kumar, Peon, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti
Ltd. Syana, Bulandshahar and Rahul, Peon,
Sahkari
Ganna
Vikas
Samiti
Ltd.,
Modinagar were transferred, on their
request, to the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti
Ltd.,
Dhaulana,
Hapur.
These
two
employees were receiving emoluments at
the Cane Cooperative Societies, wherefrom
they were transferred according to the 6th
Pay Commission pay-scale. After transfer
to the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.
Dhaulana, Hapur the two employees
continued to receive emoluments in the
pay-scale governed by the 6th Pay
Commission. It was on this account that the
petitioner claimed emoluments also in
accordance with the 6th Pay Commission.
This was so because the Sahkari Ganna
Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur was
paying its native employees salaries in
accordance with the 5th Pay Commission,
and the petitioner alleged discrimination.
The petitioner approached this Court earlier
through Writ-A No. 62640 of 2014, decided
on 04.12.2014, asking for revision of his
emoluments in terms of the 6th Pay
Commission.
That
writ
petition
was
disposed of with a direction that the
petitioner ought, in the first instance, make
a representation within two weeks to the
competent authority, along with a certified
copy of the order made in that case. Upon
that application being moved by the
petitioner, respondent no. 5 to the last
mentioned writ petition was ordered to
consider the petitioner's claim after calling
for
comments
in
the
matter
from
respondent nos. 6 and 7 also to that writ
12 All. Devendra Singh Vs. Chairman State Cane Service Auth. Lko/Cane Comm. U.P. & Ors. 709
petition, in accordance with law, within a
specified period of time. The petitioner
represented, in compliance with the order
of this Court dated 04.12.2014, on
16.12.2014, to the Cane Commissioner,
U.P., Lucknow. The Cane Commissioner,
U.P., Lucknow, respondent no. 1, vide his
order dated 09.03.2015, has proceeded
virtually
to
decline
the
petitioner's
representation. It is this order which is
under challenge here. The reason assigned
in the order impugned appears to be that no
proposal
has
been
received
for
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission
from the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.,
Dhaulana, Hapur, whereas the other Cane
Cooperative Societies, wherefrom the two
employees above mentioned came on
transfers have the 6th Pay Commission
regime already implemented. The Cane
Commissioner,
U.P.,
Lucknow
has,
therefore, proceeded to cancel the transfer
orders relating to the two employees from
the other Cooperative Societies.

5. So far as the petitioner's claim is
concerned, it has been disposed of in terms
that as and when a recommendation is
received for implementation of the 6th Pay
Commission, appropriate decision will be
taken thereon and the petitioner's claim for
grant of salary in terms of the 6th Pay
Commission shall be considered, once that
proposal
is
accepted
by
the
Cane
Commissioner for the Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
points out that a proposal has already been
made for implementation of the 6th Pay
Commission, by Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti
Ltd.,
Dhaulana,
Hapur
on
10.02.2011 in the prescribed proforma to
the Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Ganna
Samiti Sangh Ltd., Lucknow which has
been recommended by the District Cane
Officer
and
the
Deputy
Cane
Commissioner, Meerut. The resolution of
the Committee is also enclosed. It is
pointed out that the impugned order has
been passed, ignoring and disowning these
recommendations made by the Sahkari
Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur.
The attention of the Court is also drawn
towards the memo dated 20.01.2015 from
the Secretary, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti
Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur, addressed to the
Adhyaksh, Zila Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran,
Ghaziabad with copies endorsed inter alia
to the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Meerut
and
the
Joint
Cane
Commissioner/Secretary,
Rajya
Ganna
Sewa Pradhikaran, Lucknow. It is further
pointed
out
that
the
memo
dated
20.01.2015 shows that the Secretary of the
Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. has
clearly informed through the aforesaid
memo
that
complete
papers
in
the
prescribed
format,
recommending
implementation
of
the
6th
Pay
Commission, have been sent to the
Managing Director, U.P. Cane Cooperative
Union Federation Ltd., Lucknow through a
memo dated 13.01.2015, by registered post
and also by e-mail. Learned counsel for the
petitioner emphasizes that the impugned
order dated 09.03.2015 is certainly one
made after the memo dated 20.01.2015 was
issued by Secretary, Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur and also the
proposal
dated
10.02.2015,
earlier
submitted in the prescribed format. It is,
therefore, submitted that impugned order is
vitiated on account of ignorance of material
on record.

7. Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents disputes the petitioner's claim.
He submits that the Sahkari Ganna Vikas
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur is in dire
financial straits and does not have the
necessary wherewithal to shoulder the
financial burden that would entail if the
Sixth Pay Commission were implemented.
He submits that the liability to implement a
particular Pay Commission is subject to the
concerned Sahkari Samiti's financial health.
There is no scope for aid by the State
Government. In order to buttress his
submission, he has placed reliance on a
decision of this Court, rendered in Jay
Narayan Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others,
Writ - A No.22820 of 2011, decided on
26.02.2020. In that case, the employee's
claim was for payment of post retiral
benefits based on the recommendations
made by the Fifth Pay Commission. In the
context of that claim, this Court held:

"From a perusal of material placed on
the record, it appears that the Cane
Commissioner on 30 June 2005 passed an
order providing that although arrears for
the period of 01 January 1996 to 31 March
2003 would not be payable pursuant to the
recommendations made by the Fifth Pay
Commission, in respect of those employees
who had retired between 01 January 1996
to 31 March 2003, their pay scales as well
as gratuity would be revised and reworked
notionally
and
in
light
of
the
recommendations
made
by
the
Pay
Commission. The petitioner here retired in
2000. It is based on this circular of the
Cane Commissioner that the claim rests.
The
respondents
however
while
considering that claim and passing the
order
impugned have
referred
to
a
subsequent
circular
of
the
Cane
Commissioner of 30 September 2005 and
have held thus:-

"xUuk vk;qDr ,ao fucU/kd] lgdkjh xUuk
lfefr;ka m0iz0 ds ifji= la[;k 414@lh0@lfefr
fnukad 30-9-2005 }kjk iape osrueku dh lqfo/kk
vuqeU; djk;s tkus gsrq fuEufyf[kr ekin.M fu/kkZfjr
fd;s x;s gS %&

1& 1-1-96 ls 31-3-2003 dh vof/k dk dksbZ
osru ,fj;j deZpkjh dks ns; ugha gksxkA

2& u;s la'kksf/kr osrueku ykxw djus ij tks
vfrfjDr O;; Hkkj iMs+xk mldk ogu xUUkk lfefr;ka
vius lalk/kuksa ls djsxhA

3& xUuk ewY; o vU; enkas dk /ku fdlh Hkh
n'kk ea O;kofRkZr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA

4& xUuk lfefr;ksa dks u;s osrueku ykxw djus
gsrq dksbZ jktdh; lgk;rk vuqekU; ugha gksxhA

5& xUuk lfefr;ksa dks iape osrueku ykxw djus
gsrq vius lapkyd e.My ds le{k foRrh; fLFkfr dk
mYys[k djrs gq, /;ku esa j[krs gq, izLrko ikfjr
djk;sxhA

6& xUuk ewY;] ewY; O;korZu djus okyh
lfefr;ksa dks iape osru dh lqfo/kk vuqeU; ugha gksxhA

iape osrueku gsrq xUUkk vk;qDRk ,ao fucU/kd ds
ifji= la[;k 110@lh0@lfefr fnukad& 20-5-2003
,ao ifji= la[;k 414@lh0 fnukad 30-9-2005 esa
fu/kkZfjr mDr 'krksZ ds foRrh; fLFkfr ds vuqlkj xUUkk
lfefr larqyu i= o"kZ 1996&97 ds vuqlkj :i;k
2]57]2]355-50 dh gkfu gS lfefr ds vU; laLFkkvksa dh
nsunkjh 89]35]300-00 ,ao deZpkfj;ksa dh nsunkjh :0
1]22]10]04-00 gSA lfefr foxr nl o"kkZs dh lIykbZ
10-00 yk[k dqUry ls ?kVdj 3-82 yk[k dqUry dh
gks x;h gSA O;kofrZRk xUuk ewY; /kujkf'k lfefr )kjk
d`"kdkas dks 'kDdj fo'ks"k fuf/k ls] 1-54 djksM+ dk _.k
'kklu }kjk fn;k x;k gSA 'kklu ds fu/kkZfjr 'krksZ ds
vuqlkj mDr _.k ds fo:) lfefr dh ifjlEifRr;ka
jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa izcU/kd gSA

iape osrueku Lohd`r fd;s tkus gsrq lfefr dh
izcU/k desVh }kjk dksbZ izLrko ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k
gS vkSj fu/kkZfjr ekudkas dh 'krsZ iw.kZ u djus ds dkj.k
lfefr eas c<+rs yxkrkj ldy ?kkVs dks n`f"Vxr j[krs
gq, iape osrueku Lohd`r fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR;
ugha curkA"

As is evident from a reading of the
extract of the communication of the Cane
Commissioner of 30 September 2005,
bearing in mind the precarious financial
condition
of
Cane
Cooperative
Development Unions, it was left open for
them to take a decision with respect to
adoption of the recommendations made by
the Fifth Pay Commission. This the State
had clearly provided since it was clarified
that any additional burden that may fall
12 All. Devendra Singh Vs. Chairman State Cane Service Auth. Lko/Cane Comm. U.P. & Ors. 711
upon the Cane Cooperative Development
Union
would
be
borne
by
them
independently and without any financial aid
or assistance of the State Government. The
respondents have then alluded to the
financial condition and the losses under
which the particular respondent union was
reeling.
It
has
further
been
stated
categorically that in light of the precarious
financial position, the Board of the Cane
Cooperative Development Union did not at
any point of time either adopt or decide to
implement the recommendations as made
by the Fifth Pay Commission.........."

8. This Court has perused the entire
record. It does appear from a perusal of the
record that the sole reason assigned by the
Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow to pass
the
order
impugned,
declining
the
petitioner's claim is the non-submission of
a proposal to implement the 6th Pay
Commission
recommendation
by
the
Sahkari
Ganna
Vikas
Samiti
Ltd.,
Dhaulana, Hapur. The claim has been
declined with a remark that as and when
the said proposal is received, a decision to
implement it would be taken. This Court
finds that a proposal by the Cooperative
Societies, Dhaulana has already been made,
which ought not only be available with the
Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, but
also with the Managing Director, U.P.
Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd.,
Lucknow. Between them, respondent nos. 1
and 2 are the competent authorities to
sanction the proposal. The impugned order
has been passed, ignoring the proposal
dated 10.02.2011, duly recommended to the
Managing Director and also the memo
dated 20.01.2015, which mentions some
further proposal dated 13.01.2015 for the
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission
in the Establishment of the Sahkari Ganna
Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. This
being so, the impugned order passed by the
Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow suffers
from the errors of ignorance of material
evidence
on
record,
besides
being
manifestly illegal.

9. The submission of Mr. Ravindra
Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents,
based on the decision of this Court in Jay
Narayan Tiwari (supra), would not be
attracted to the facts here for more than one
reason. The said decision is based on the
circular of the Cane Commissioner, dated
September
the
30th,
2005,
which
apparently relates to the implementation of
the Fifth Pay Commission. It has not been
asserted by Mr. Ravindra Singh that the
said circular applies years later to the
implementation
of
the
Sixth
Pay
Commission as well.

10. Secondly, the decision would not
come to the respondents' rescue because on
the facts here, the Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, District Hapur have
already submitted a proposal seeking
implementation
of
the
Sixth
Pay
Commission.
Thus,
if
the
Cane
Commissioner's
circular,
dated
30th
September, 2005, were to apply to the Sixth
Pay Commission also, it would not avail
the
respondents,
because
the
Samiti
concerned would be conscious of its
finances before making a recommendation
for the implementation of the Sixth Pay
Commission.

11. There is still another reason why
the submission based on the decision in Jay
Narayan Tiwari (supra) would not apply.
The impugned order does not carry for a
justification the fact that the Sahkari Samiti
in question is reeling under a financial
crisis or that the Cane Commissioner's
circular dated 30th September, 2005 or a
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
similar circular, subsequently issued vis-avis the Sixth Pay Commission, stands to
defeat the petitioner's claim. The law is
well settled that the validity of an order
under challenge before the Court can be
judged by the reasons that it carries.
Nothing can be added to the reasons, on
which the impugned order is founded by
way of affidavits, much less submissions
made during the hearing.

12. In this view of the matter, the
submissions advanced by Mr. Ravindra
Singh, founded on the decision of this
Court in Jay Narayan Tiwari cannot avail
the respondents.

13. It must be remarked that the
petitioner has reportedly retired. In case a
decision
to
implement
the 6th Pay
Commission were to be taken and the
petitioner's claim considered, he would be
entitled to revised pay-scale from an
appropriate date and also revision of his
post-retiral benefits.

14. In the result, this writ petition is
allowed in part. The impugned order dated
09.03.2015 is hereby quashed. The matter
stands remitted to the Cane Commissioner,
U.P. Lucknow and also to the Managing
Director, U.P. Cooperative Cane Union
Federation Ltd., Lucknow to take a
decision between them, or whosoever is
entitled
under
law,
regarding
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission
for the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.,
Dhaulana, Hapur based on the pending
recommendation dated 10.02.2011 and
further recommendation made in the
matter, within a period of one month of the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. In
case
the
6th
Pay
Commission
recommendations are implemented for the
Sahkari Ganna Samiti concerned, the
petitioner's emoluments and post retiral
benefits would be revised and paid, within
three months of the decision to implement
the pay commission recommendations.

15. There shall, however, be no order
as to costs.

16. Let this order be communicated to
the Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow and
the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative
Cane Union Federation Ltd., Lucknow by
the Joint Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2020)12ILR A712
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Service Single No. 23351 of 2020

Sunita Shukla & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Aditya Vikram Shahi, Prashant Vikram
Singh, Shradha Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Old Pension Scheme - The
petitioners claimed to have appeared for a
selection process which was advertised in the
year 2011 which eventually got delayed. The
appointment got concluded in the year 2006 by
which the New Post Retirement Scheme had
come into force and the Old Pension Scheme
had seized to be effective from 01.04.2005. The
Court rejected the claim of the petitioner
seeking benefits of Old Pension Scheme on the
ground that the petitioner neither approached
this Court seeking any remedy for expeditious
selection and appointment nor they raised any