# Food and Civil Supply Pensioniers Welfare Association, Meerut v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 755
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-08
- **Case number:** J. Special Appeal No. 818 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/food-and-civil-supply-pensioniers-welfare-association-meerut-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51474
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Implementation of Sixth
Pay Commission - Food and Civil Supply
Department
-
Appellant-association,
representing retired employees of the Food and
Civil
Supply
Department
(2008-2011),
challenged the rejection of their representation
seeking implementation of the Sixth Pay
Commission report notionally from 1.1.2006 -
Held, the Sixth Pay Commission report was
uniformly
implemented
across
all
St.
departments, including Food and Civil Supply,
from 1.1.2006 vide Government Order dated
8.12.2008 - No illegality or perversity shown in
the finding of the learned Single Judge -
Appellant's primary grievance regarding nonimplementation of the Sixth Pay Commission
from 1.1.2006 rejected. (Paras 3, 8)

B. Service Law - Upgradation of Pay Scale
- Rectification of Anomalies - Appellant
sought retrospective application of upgraded
pay scales (effective 30.6.2011) from 1.1.2006,
alleging arbitrariness - Held, the upgradation of
pay scales, based on the Tenth Pay Committee
Report, addressed anomalies considering work
performed
and
equivalence
with
other
departments
-
This
potential
claim
was
recognized only on 30.6.2011, and benefits
were rightly granted prospectively from that
date - No existing right to upgraded pay existed
prior to 30.6.2011, rendering retrospective
application untenable. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11)

C. Service Law - Potential Claims - Prospective
Application - The claim for upgraded pay scales
was a potential claim, not based on pre-existing
rights, and required determination through
appropriate proceedings - Held, such claims are
ordinarily implemented prospectively from the
date of recognition (30.6.2011) - No evidence
showed
that
the
appellant's
claim
was
recognized earlier or that their circumstances
mirrored Central Government employees -
Learned Single Judge's refusal to interfere with
the St.'s order upheld as no illegality found.
(Paras 10, 11, 12)

Special Appeal Dismissed - No Merit
Found in Challenge to Single Judge's
Order.

## Text

2 All. Food and Civil Supply Pensioniers Welfare Association, Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 755
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 755
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Special Appeal No. 818 of 2022

Food and Civil Supply Pensioniers Welfare
Association, Meerut ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Kumar
Ashutosh
Srivastava,
Sri
Bhupendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Implementation of Sixth
Pay Commission - Food and Civil Supply
Department
-
Appellant-association,
representing retired employees of the Food and
Civil
Supply
Department
(2008-2011),
challenged the rejection of their representation
seeking implementation of the Sixth Pay
Commission report notionally from 1.1.2006 -
Held, the Sixth Pay Commission report was
uniformly
implemented
across
all
St.
departments, including Food and Civil Supply,
from 1.1.2006 vide Government Order dated
8.12.2008 - No illegality or perversity shown in
the finding of the learned Single Judge -
Appellant's primary grievance regarding nonimplementation of the Sixth Pay Commission
from 1.1.2006 rejected. (Paras 3, 8)

B. Service Law - Upgradation of Pay Scale
- Rectification of Anomalies - Appellant
sought retrospective application of upgraded
pay scales (effective 30.6.2011) from 1.1.2006,
alleging arbitrariness - Held, the upgradation of
pay scales, based on the Tenth Pay Committee
Report, addressed anomalies considering work
performed
and
equivalence
with
other
departments
-
This
potential
claim
was
recognized only on 30.6.2011, and benefits
were rightly granted prospectively from that
date - No existing right to upgraded pay existed
prior to 30.6.2011, rendering retrospective
application untenable. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11)

C. Service Law - Potential Claims - Prospective
Application - The claim for upgraded pay scales
was a potential claim, not based on pre-existing
rights, and required determination through
appropriate proceedings - Held, such claims are
ordinarily implemented prospectively from the
date of recognition (30.6.2011) - No evidence
showed
that
the
appellant's
claim
was
recognized earlier or that their circumstances
mirrored Central Government employees -
Learned Single Judge's refusal to interfere with
the St.'s order upheld as no illegality found.
(Paras 10, 11, 12)

Special Appeal Dismissed - No Merit
Found in Challenge to Single Judge's
Order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)

1. Appellant before this Court is the
Association of Food and Civil Supply
Pensioners, which is aggrieved by the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
4.10.2021,
passed
in
writ
petition
nos.68856 of 2015 and 57952 of 2014.

2. The appellant-association by filing
the writ petition had primarily challenged
the order passed by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Food and Civil Supply,
State of U.P., Lucknow dated 12.2.2015,
whereby representation made by the
appellant-association
was
rejected.
A
further prayer has been made to issue a writ
of mandamus commanding the respondents
to implement the sixth pay commission
report from 1.12.2008 notionally from
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.1.2006. The members of the appellantassociation are those employees of the
department of food and civil supply, who
had retired between 2008 to 2011.

3. Learned Single Judge after
examining the claim of the appellant has
returned a finding that the recommendation
of the sixth pay commission report was
uniformly implemented in all departments
of the State, including department of food
and civil supply, with effect from 1.1.2006
in terms of the Government Order dated
8.12.2008. The finding returned in that
regard is not shown to be illegal or
perverse. Learned Single Judge has also
observed that the rectification of anomalies
in the pay scale vide tenth report of pay
committee got implemented with effect
from 30.6.2011 and upgraded pay was
granted from the date of notification dated
30.6.2011.

4. Learned Single Judge has opined
that the grant of benefit of up-gradation of
pay consequent upon rectification of
anomalies in the pay scale has nothing to do
with the implementation of the sixth pay
commission report. With this finding, writ petition
filed by the appellant-association has been
rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the benefit of rectification of anomalies ought
to have been extended from the date when sixth
pay commission report itself was implemented i.e.
1.1.2006 and restricting its benefits with effect
from 30.6.2011 is wholly arbitrary.

6. The appeal is opposed by learned State
counsel.

7. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the materials
on record.

8. The appellant has essentially prayed that
the benefit of sixth pay commission report be
extended in the department of food and civil
supply with effect from 1.1.2006. This is the
primary grievance raised in the writ petition.
Learned Single Judge upon evaluation of
respective pleas put forth by the parties has
returned a categorical finding that the sixth pay
commission report has been implemented in the
department of food and civil supply with effect
from 1.1.2006 vide Government Order dated
8.12.2008. Though the judgment of learned Single
Judge has been challenged but the appellant has
not been able to show that in the department of
food and civil supply the benefit of sixth pay
commission report was not implemented at par
with other departments with effect from 1.1.2006.
The grievance of the appellant in that regard is,
therefore, rejected.

9. The claim raised by the members of the
appellant-association apparently was in the nature
of a potential claim as the employees of the
department were claiming parity with
employees of other departments on the
basis of work performed by them. The
recommendations
made
by
the
pay
committee report (tenth report) was based
upon the nature of work performed by the
appellant-association
and
upon
consideration of the plea of equivalence of
status viz-a-viz posts of other departments
and got implemented vide notification
dated 30.6.2011. Such potential claim since
was recognized, for the first time, on
30.6.2011,
the
recommendations
got
enforced in the department from that day.

10. In the order of the State
Government a categorical finding has been
returned that the grant of upgraded pay
scale was on the basis of consideration by
the pay committee with regard to anomalies
in the pay scale, with reference to the work
performance and status of the employees
2 All. Firoz Khan Vs. Bank of India & Ors.
757
viz-a-viz posts of other departments of the
State. Since claims which were potential in
nature got recognized vide notification
dated 30.6.2011, for the first time, the grant
of benefit of upgraded pay only from
30.6.2011 cannot said to be illegal or
arbitrary.

11. Potential claims since are
not based on any existing rights,
such
claims
would
require
determination first. It is only after
determination
of
such
potential
claim in appropriate proceedings that
the
benefits
found
due
can
be
extended. Ordinarily grant of such
benefits would be prospective.

12. It is not the case of the appellant
that their claim for upgraded scale stood
recognized from before nor is it their case
that they were similarly circumscribed as
the employees of the Central Government.
We, therefore, find no error in the judgment
of the learned Single Judge refusing to
interfere in the writ petition.

13. The special appeal lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 757
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ - A No. 848 of 2019

Firoz Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sharad Malviya, Sri Yogendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.V. Pandey

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Financial
Condition
Assessment
-
Petitioner
sought
compassionate appointment after his father's
death, which was rejected by the Bank of India
- Held, under Para 17, Sub Para (iii) of the Bank
of
India
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment, the financial condition of the
deceased employee's family, including assets,
liabilities, and terminal benefits, must be
assessed - Family received Rs. 44,43,178/-
(after deducting liabilities of Rs. 5,97,000/-) and
a monthly pension of Rs. 24,718/-, which was
sufficient to avoid financial crisis - Rejection of
compassionate appointment upheld as the
family was not in a penurious condition. (Paras
3, 5, 8, 9, 17, 19)

B. Service Law - Bank of India Scheme -
Interpretation of Para 17 (iii) - The scheme
mandates a balanced and objective assessment
of the family's financial condition, considering
terminal benefits (e.g., gratuity, provident fund,
leave encashment) and liabilities - Held,
compassionate appointment cannot be rejected
solely on the ground of receiving welfare
scheme benefits, but the quantum of benefits
(Rs. 44,43,178/- and Rs. 24,718/- monthly
pension) justified denial, as the family could
meet financial liabilities without appointment -
No illegality found in the impugned order dated
15.11.2017. (Paras 4, 8, 18, 19)

C.
Service
Law
-
Precedents
on
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Judgments in *General Manager (D & PB)
Vs Kunti Tiwary*, *Punjab National Bank
Vs Ashwani Kumar Taneja*, *St. Bank of
India
Vs
Jaspal
Kaur*,
and
others
consistently hold that terminal benefits
and pension amounts can be considered
to assess financial hardship
- Held,
amounts comparable to or less than Rs.
44,43,178/- (terminal benefits) and Rs.
24,718/- (pension) in prior cases justified
denial of compassionate appointment -
Petitioner's
case
aligns
with
these
precedents,
and
no
interference
warranted. (Paras 6, 10-16, 17)