# Prabhu Nath Yadav v. Union Of India

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 187
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1020 of 2006
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prabhu-nath-yadav-v-union-of-india-52819
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

12 All. Prabhu Nath Yadav Vs. Union Of India
187
the impugned common judgment and order
dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Single
Judge in Writ A No. 49901 of 2016 and
connected
case
is
set
aside
and
consequently the special appeals no. 530 of
2025, 608 of 2025 and Special Appeal
Defective No. 656 of 2025 are allowed and
respondents are directed to release all
admissible salary arrears to the appellants
for the period they actually discharged
duties.

31. The respondents are further directed
to compute and pay all consequential retiral
benefits, including gratuity and pension, as
may be admissible in law along with interest,
as may be applicable to the appellants, and in
cases where an employee has died, to their
legal heirs. The entire exercise shall be
completed expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
judgment.

32. In the matter of Special Appeal
preferred by Lallan Tiwari, the controversy
stood finally concluded as we have
recorded above in the earlier part of the
judgment that his termination of service.
Order came to be finally approved by the
authority and against which writ petition
filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed
on 26.11.1998 which stood further affirmed
in the Special Appeal under the order of the
coordinate Bench on 21.05.2003, review of
which was also dismissed by the Bench
vide order dated 16.12.2005.

33. In the circumstances, therefore, the
case of Lallan Tiwari does not rest on the
same footing as that of other appellants and
hence we find no justification to now allow
highly time barred recall application filed
on 05.09.2012 in respect of the final
judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court
on 21.05.2003. We may further hold that
once the judgment has attained finality and
review application has also been dismissed
by the Division Bench, neither any recall in
respect of the judgment and order of the
learned single judge was maintainable for
the said judgment having been affirmed in
the appeal, nor any recall application in
respect of the order passed by the Division
Bench would be maintainable in view of
the fact that the review application had
stood dismissed.

34. In the circumstances, therefore, we
see neither any justification to condone the
delay after more than nine years inasmuch
as recall itself is not maintainable, hence,
both the applications stand dismissed.

35. Thus all the other intra-court
appeals and miscellaneous applications
therein are disposed of accordingly. There
will be no order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 187
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 1020 of 2006

Prabhu Nath Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of two minor punishment for the
incident not occurred at the work place or
during the working hours on the entitlement of
petitioner to cross the efficiency bar.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constable in Central
Industrial Security Force (CISF) - Non
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award of efficiency bar - Entitlement -
Minor
Punishment
of
withholding
of
annual increment for two consecutive
years without cumulative effect for the
misconduct
that
having
witnessed
a
quarrel between two persons, which is not
said to have taken place at the work place
and Seven day's pay fine was awarded in
1988 and 1989 - Petitioner was declared
NYF (not yet fit) and not 'unfit' - Effect -
Efficiency Bar Board denied the petitioner
crossing efficiency bar in 1991, 1992 and
1993 - Legality challenged. (E-1)

Held : The petitioner could not have been
denied crossing efficiency bar for reasons which
do not reflect adversely upon his efficiency to
perform
his
official
duties.
Although
the
efficiency bar board was entitled to take a
decision on the basis of the petitioner's service
record, it could have denied the petitioner
crossing the efficiency bar only if the record
revealed that the petitioner was not efficient in
performance of his duties - The use of the
expression 'NYF' (not yet fit) indicates that the
board was of the view that the unfitness of the
petitioner was continuing since prior to the
subject year. Had the petitioner been declared
unfit', it would have reflected that the board had
found the petitioner unfit during the subject
year for crossing the efficiency bar on the basis
of his performance in the subject year -.None of
the incidents show that the petitioner was not
efficient in performance of his official duties.
Therefore, the aforesaid incidents of the years
1988 and 1999 and punishments recorded in
the service record of the petitioner do not give
rise to a ground for denial to let the petitioner
cross the efficiency bar during the subsequent
years 1991, 1992 and 1993. [Paras 14 and 15]

List of Keywords
Minor punishment; Withholding of annual
increment for two consecutive years without
cumulative effect; Efficiency bar; NYF (Not yet
fit); Superannuation; Pension.

Case Arising From
Order of Efficiency Bar Board denying the
petitioner crossing the efficiency bar.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Manish Misra,
Namit Sharma
Advs. for the Respondents : Dipak Seth,
Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Krishna Kumar Pandey,
Raj Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Misra, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raj
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of
India.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has sought issuance
of a Writ of Certiorari challenging the
validity
of
Efficiency
Bar
Board
proceedings published on 24.06.1993, so
far as, the same relate to the petitioner. The
petitioner had given representations against
the order holding that the petitioner could
not cross the efficiency bar and those
representations have been rejected by
means of orders dated 18.01.2005 &
31.02.2005
and
the
petitioner
has
challenged the validity of those orders also.
The petitioner has sought issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay all the dues of the
petitioner as if, the petitioner had crossed
the efficiency bar in the years 1991, 1992
& 1993.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner was appointed as a constable
in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)
on 25.06.1987 in the pay-scale of ₹825-15-
900-20, Efficiency Bar (EB)?20. After an
increment given w.e.f. 01.06.1988, the
petitioner' basic pay was increased to
₹870/- per month.

4. By means of an order dated
13.12.1988 (published on 07.02.1989), the
petitioner was awarded a minor punishment
of withholding of annual increment for two
12 All. Prabhu Nath Yadav Vs. Union Of India
189
consecutive
years
without
cumulative
effect. Again, by means of an order dated
23.09.1991, the petitioner was awarded a
punishment of seven days' pay fine. Due to
withholding of annual increment for two
consecutive
years
without
cumulative
effect, the increments due in the years,
1989 & 1990 were released on 01.06.1991
raising the petitioner's pay-scale to ? 900/-.

5.
The
increment
payable
upon
crossing the efficiency bar was not granted
to the petitioner as he was found "NYF'
(not yet fit) by the Efficiency Bar Board in
the proceedings conducted in the years
1991, 1992 and 1993 and, therefore, he was
not granted the increments of Rs.20/-
payable upon crossing the efficiency bar in
the
aforesaid
years.
Ultimately,
the
petitioner was declared 'fit' by Efficiency
Bar Board in the year 1994 and thereupon,
his basic salary was fixed as ₹920/- per
month
w.e.f.
01.06.1994.
Subsequent
increments were granted to the petitioner
but due to non-crossing of efficiency bar
for three consecutive years, the petitioner's
salary became less than other similarly
situated persons and this had a cumulative
effect on the pension being paid to him.

6. The representations submitted by
the petitioner against all non-award of
efficiency bar raised to him, have been
rejected.

7. Assailing the validity of the
aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the effect of
punishment of withholding of two annual
increments with non-cumulative effect got
washed away in the year, 1990 when the
annual increments were granted to him.
The minor punishment of imposition of
seven
days'
pay
fine
imposed
on
04.11.1991, which would not have any
other effect on the emoluments of the
petitioner.

8. The respondents have filed a
counter affidavit inter alia stating that in
the year 1990?91, the petitioner was rated
'an average employee'. In the year 1992, he
was rated 'good'. For this reason, the
Efficiency Bar Board held on 02.06.1992
and 14.07.1993 that the petitioner was
'NYF' to cross the efficiency bar.

9. The orders dated 02.06.1992 &
14.07.1993 (copies whereof have been
annexed with the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents) merely state that the
persons named in the orders, including the
petitioner, had not been found fit to cross
the efficiency bar by the competent
authority. These orders do not assign any
reason, as to why, the competent authority
has not found the petitioner fit to cross the
efficiency bar.

10. The learned counsel for the
respondents
has
submitted
that
the
Efficiency Bar Board has found the
petitioner unfit for crossing the efficiency
bar keeping in view his poor service record.

11.
Replying
to
the
aforesaid
submission advanced by learned counsel
for the respondents, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the chart,
annexed with the counter affidavit, shows
that in the year 1990, the petitioner was
rated 'average' but no punishment was
awarded to him. The petitioner was rated
'good' in the year, 1992. No adverse
material has been brought on record to
show that the petitioner was rated poorly in
the year, 1993.

12. The learned counsel for the
respondents
has
submitted
that
the
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Efficiency Bar Board has examined service
record of the petitioner and due to his poor
track record, the Board formed an opinion
that the petitioner was 'NYF' to cross the
efficiency bar.

13. The poor service record of the
petitioner is relatable to award of two
minor punishments to the petitioner in the
year 1988 & 1989. "Efficiency bar"
apparently relates to efficiency of an
employee in performance of official duties.
The petitioner had previously been imposed
a minor punishment of stoppage of two
annual increments without cumulative
effect in the year 1988, for having
witnessed a quarrel between two persons
and, thereafter, having denied to have
witnessed the same. Allegation against him
was that he did not speak the truth. This
allegation does not in any manner reflect
badly on efficiency of the petitioner in
performance of official duties. On the
second occasion, the petitioner was said to
have indulged into a quarrel outside the
work place for which, a punishment of
seven days' pay fine was imposed upon him
and it also does not reflect poorly upon the
efficiency of the petitioner to perform his
official duties. Moreover, the petitioner has
already been punished for both the alleged
incidents.

14. Firstly, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner could
not have been denied crossing efficiency
bar for reasons which do not reflect
adversely upon his efficiency to perform
his official duties. Although the efficiency
bar board was entitled to take a decision on
the basis of the petitioner's service record,
it could have denied the petitioner crossing
the efficiency bar only if the record
revealed that the petitioner was not
efficient in performance of his duties.

15. In the present case, the petitioner
has not been allowed to cross the efficiency
bar in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993, when
he was declared NYF (not yet fit) and not
'unfit'. The use of the expression 'NYF' (not
yet fit) indicates that the board was of the
view that the unfitness of the petitioner was
continuing since prior to the subject year.
Had the petitioner been declared unfit', it
would have reflected that the board had
found the petitioner unfit during the subject
year for crossing the efficiency bar on the
basis of his performance in the subject
year. The only adverse material available
on the service record of the petitioner is
two minor punishments, the first being
stoppage of two annual increments without
cumulative effect imposed in the year 1988
for the misconduct that having witnessed a
quarrel between two persons, which is not
said to have taken place at the work place
or during the working hours, the petitioner
declined having witnessed the incident and
the second being entering into a quarrel for
which 7 days' pay fine was imposed on the
petitioner in the year 1999. None of the
incidents show that the petitioner was not
efficient in performance of his official
duties. Therefore, the aforesaid incidents of
the years 1988 and 1999 and punishments
recorded in the service record of the
petitioner do not give rise to a ground for
denial to let the petitioner cross the
efficiency bar during the subsequent years
1991, 1992 and 1993.

16.
Secondly,
for
the
aforesaid
incidents of the years 1988 and 1999, the
petitioner had already been punished. No
person can be punished more than once for
the same misconduct. Having already
suffered the punishment of withholding of
two
annual
increments
with
noncumulative effects and seven days' pay fine,
denial of crossing efficiency bar for the
12 All. The State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Vinay & Ors.
191
same reason has resulted in the salary of
the petitioner being diminished with
cumulative effect which effect is still
continuing when the petitioner has attained
the age of superannuation, as he is getting a
lesser amount as pension. Thus, the denial
of crossing efficiency bar has in effect
resulted in a major punishment being
awarded to the petitioner, for misconducts
for which he had already been awarded two
minor punishments.

17. In view of the aforementioned
facts, I am of the considered view that the
denial of crossing of efficiency bar to the
petitioner was illegal and so was the
rejection of his representations against the
order denying crossing the efficiency bar.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed. The Efficiency Bar Board
proceedings published on 24.06.1993, so
far as same relate to the petitioner, are
quashed. A Writ of Mandamus is issued
directing the respondents to treat the
petitioner as having been crossed efficiency
bar in the years 1991, 1992 & 1993 and
they shall re-calculate the salary/pension
payable to him accordingly and also pay
the amount of arrears to him within a
period of four months from the date, the
certified copy of this order is produced
before them.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 191
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Special Appeal No. 1233 of 2025

The State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Vinay & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Constitutional validity of treating the
candidates of the same selected list, as different
class on the basis of the date of their respective
appointment letters and the date mentioned for
their training, on the touchstone of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Intelligible differentia -
Reasonable classification - Benefit of pay
protection - The candidates selected for
the post of Police Constable through direct
recruitment
were
divided
into
four
batches for training for different periods -
Appointment letters were also issued on
different dates - The candidates of first
batch were extended the benefit of pay
protection treating them differently from
other batches - Validity challenged -
Contended on behalf of State that the
different
treatment
accorded
to
candidates belonging to different batches,
which are selected from the same list, is
within the scope of Article 14 of the
Constitution - Permissibility. (E-1)
Held : The training to be conducted in phases
was necessitated solely by the infrastructural
limitations faced by the appellant State and
exigencies arising from the Covid-19 pandemic
and not due to any intelligible differentia
amongst the candidates in the select list.
Therefore, depriving candidates placed under
training on later batches, is grossly arbitrary and
suffers the vice of hostile discrimination - While
this Court accepts the existence of pandemicrelated exigencies and infrastructural limitations
but such external and temporary administrative
compulsions cannot justify differential treatment
among candidates belonging to a homogeneous
class. The legal position governing permissible
classification under Article 14 is too well settled
to require elaboration and when tested on
settled parameters, the justification offered by
the appellant State does not withstand scrutiny.
[Paras 17 and 19]

Case Law Cited