# Rajveer Singh v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 866
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-23
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 25095 of 2012
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajveer-singh-v-board-of-revenue-uttar-pradesh-lucknow-ors-54321
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

12. The trial court concerned is however directed to conclude the trial most expeditiously.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 866
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ B No. 25095 of 2012

Rajveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether complicated questions of title can be decided in summary proceedings u/s 34 LR Act?

Headnotes
A. Land Reform Law - Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901: Section 34; Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section 171; Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953: Section 49.

Tikaram had three sons, Jhandu, Veela and Revati. The petitioner represents the branch of Jhandu in the
male line of descent. Veela and Revati died issueless. Tikaram had a daughter as well, named Janki, who was
married to a man, also called Jhandu, a resident of Isauli, Etah. The fifth respondent is Janki's son, and his
father, Jhandu appears to have been confounded for Tikaram's son Jhandu. Therefore, whatever rights
respondent no. 5, Lal Singh might assert would be in the female line of descent of Tikaram, which, prima
facie, would be excluded u/s 171(1)(ii) r/w Section 171(2)(a) and 171(2)(h) ZA & LR Act, the daughter's son
being excluded in the presence of the male line. These remarks are absolutely tentative, and not decisive of
the rights of parties. This is to clarify matters on account of some confusion that the order of the S.D.O., since
set aside by the Commissioner, raised. (Para 16)

An order secured by playing fraud upon an Authority or Court cannot be saved by the bar of
limitation. In the appeal that was carried by the petitioner u/s 210 of the LR Act, the S.D.O. remarked that
respondent no. 5 is not a member of the deceased Veela's family, but claims right by survivorship on account
of being a co-tenureholder. The right u/s 175 becomes available to a co-tenureholder in a situation
alone where there are no heirs entitled to inherit u/s 171 ZA and LR Act. The fifth respondent, Lal
Singh's father were three brothers, and he would be entitled to inherit along with Deshraj and Ram Swarup on
the basis of succession. These facts were suppressed by the fifth respondent from the Mutation Authority. The
Mutation Authority, while passing the order dated 30.09.1970, did not, at all, consider the right of inheritance
to Veela's estate u/s 171 ZA & LR Act, and the mutation order was secured from the Tahsildar by the fifth
respondent by playing fraud on the authority. (Para 13)

B. If mutation, claimed to be wrong or erroneous, is not objected to during consolidation
operations, after denotification, the right to mutation or its correction cannot be asserted. The
appeal was allowed and also the petitioner's restoration application, setting aside the order dated 31.05.2004
passed by the Naib Tahsildar. The order of mutation dated 30.09.1970 was also set aside, holding it to be one
3 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors.
867
secured by fraud. The mutation matter was restored to the Naib Tahsildar's file, with the direction that rights of parties
to succeed to Veela's bhumidhari shall first be considered in accordance with law u/s 171 ZA & LR Act, and, in the
event, there is no heir found, entitled to inherit under the last mentioned provision, shall the case u/s 175 put forward
by the co-sharer on the basis of survivorship be considered. (Para 13)

C. Mutation proceedings are summary in nature, which are essentially undertaken in order to safeguard
the interests of the revenue, and for that purpose, correction of the record of rights. These do not, in
any way, affect the title of parties. The fifth respondent carried a revision to the Commissioner of the Division.
The Commissioner has remarked that the order of the Naib Tahsildar rejecting the restoration application shows that
the Naib Tahsildar proceeded on the basis that the claim to mutation put forward by the petitioner was barred by
Section 49 UP CH Act. (Para 14)

D. Complicated questions of title are not meant to be decided in summary proceedings u/s 34 LR Act,
and, to do so, is against the law. The reasoning of the Commissioner is simple, that this matter involves
complicated questions of title, founded on the right of parties to inherit in preference to the other, or to claim the land
in dispute failing the inheritance, by survivorship u/s 175 ZA & LR Act. No doubt, these kind of questions are beyond
the competence of the Mutation Authorities to decide, considering the fact that in whatever manner and whatever be
the circumstances, the fifth respondent's name came to be recorded way back on 30.09.1970. It was, apparently, illadvised for the petitioner, who now claims on the basis of title, to move an application to set aside that order and seek
restoration of the mutation matter 34 years after the event. (Para 14, 16)

The proper course for the petitioner was obviously to bring a title suit, seeking declaration of his rights that he claims
on the basis of inheritance u/s 171 ZA & LR Act. If in these circumstances, the Mutation Authority found the application
to set aside the mutation order, passed 34 years ago, that is to say, 34 years antedating the making of the restoration
application, to be hopelessly barred by time, we do not think that any error was committed by the Naib Tahsildar in
taking that view, and, a fortiori, by the Commissioner in restoring the Naib Tahsildar's order. (Para 16)

E. The opinion expressed by the Naib Tahsildar about the bar of Section 49 UP CH Act is only tentative,
and if a suit were brought by petitioner to establish his right u/s 171, and the same is found to be
within limitation etc., the remarks of the Naib Tahsildar about the bar of Section 49 UP CH Act would
not bind parties or tie-down the hands of the Court trying the title suit, in deciding that issue also, if
raised independently. (Para 17)

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. The interim order dated 17.11.2016 is hereby vacated. (Para 18, 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division and others,
2020 (3) ADJ 104 (Para 17)
2. Amritansh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC:167189 (Para 17)

List of Acts
 Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

List of Keywords
 tenureholder, mutation application, possession, land, restoration, limitation, consolidation.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Devendra Kumar Yadav
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for respondents nos. 1 to 4 Mr.
Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 5

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

This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in
Revision No. 2462 (LR)/2005-06, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirming an order
dated 28.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Revision No. 13/2004-05 carried by
the fifth respondent against an appellate order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Sadar, Firozabad dated
14.12.2004 passed in Appeal No. 3/2004-05 preferred by the petitioner, allowing the said appeal and setting
aside an order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Uttar, Firozabad, rejecting the petitioner's
restoration application made in Case No. 90T, seeking to set aside an order dated 30.09.1970 passed in the
mutation case aforesaid in favour of the fifth respondent on ground that it is ex-parte. The facts giving rise to
the present writ petition are detailed hereinbelow.

2. It is the petitioner's case that the property in dispute comprises Old Khata No. 509, now New Gata
Nos. 2023/1क, 2044/1क, 2048/1ख, 2454, 2489, 2490 and 2491, admeasuring a total of 1.153 hectare, which
was bhumidhari of the petitioner's predecessors-in-title. The petitioner claims that his predecessors-in-title
were in cultivatory possession of the aforesaid land, and after them, the petitioner is in continuous possession.
The land is situate in Mauza Narkhi Taluka, District Firozabad. The said land shall hereinafter be called "the
land in dispute". The writ petition was instituted by Rajveer Singh son of Ram Dayal, who died pendente lite.
He was succeeded by three of his heirs, to wit, Sona Devi wife of the late Rajveer Singh, and Rahul Kumar
and Kuldeep Kumar, both sons of the late Rajveer Singh. They have been substituted as petitioners nos. 1/1,
1/2 and 1/3. For the sake of convenience, they shall hereinafter be referred to as "the petitioner" in singular.

3. It is the petitioner's further case that the land in dispute was originally the tenure of one Tikaram. He
had three sons, to wit, Jhandu, Veela and Revati, and a daughter, Janki. Two of the sons of Tikaram, that is to
say, Veela and Revati, died issueless. The third son, Jhandu, had two sons, Laturi and Ram Dayal. The
petitioner is a son of Ram Dayal. He has propounded the following pedigree :
3 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors.
869

4. Tikaram's daughter, Janki was married to Jhandu, apparently, a different person from
Tikaram's son Jhandu, and a resident of Isauli, District Etah. Janki had three sons, to wit, Neksey,
Deshraj and Ram Swarup. The fifth respondent, Lal Singh, is a son of Neksey. The petitioner
asserts that he i.e. Rajveer Singh son of Ram Dayal is the one and only grandson of Jhandu, son of
Tikaram in the male line, and as such, Jhandu's legal heir entitled to inherit the bhumidhari. It is
asserted by the petitioner that there is neither a sale deed nor a will executed in favour of Lal Singh,
respondent no. 5 by any bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Lal Singh's name was wrongly mutated
in the revenue records, and he, concealing true facts, obtained an order of mutation dated
30.09.1970, which is not sustainable in law. The order dated 30.09.1970, granting mutation in
favour of Lal Singh by the Naib Tahsildar, is asserted to be ex-parte, in the sense that it was passed
without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is castigated as an order made in
violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Dwelling further on facts, the petitioner says that respondent no. 5 filed for mutation after
Veela son of Tikaram died, saying that Veela was issueless and had no son or daughter or brother,
entitled to inherit. He fraudulently obtained an order ex-parte from the Naib Tahsildar, Uttar,
Firozabad dated 30.09.1970, concealing the fact that in Veela's male line, Ram Dayal's son,
Rajveer Singh, was there, who was entitled to inherit. The petitioner says that he came to know
about the fraud played by respondent no. 5 for the first time in the year 2003, when respondent no.
5 attempted to take possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner inquired into the matter and
then moved for recall of the order dated 30.09.1970 by means of a recall application made on
25.07.2003. The application was made in Case No. 90T, where the mutation order had been passed
under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 19011. The Naib Tahsildar, Uttar,
Firozabad rejected the recall application dated 27.05.2003 made by the petitioner vide order dated
31.05.2004.

6. The petitioner carried an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Firozabad, which was
registered as Appeal No. 3/2004-05, under Section 210 of the LR Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
vide order dated 14.12.2004, allowed the appeal and remanded the cause to the Naib Tahsildar,
with a direction to decide the question of succession to the late Veela's bhumidhari, in the first
place, under Section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 19502,
and failing an heir entitled to inherit under Section 175 ZA & LR Act.

7. This order of remand dated 14.12.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was
challenged by Lal Singh, respondent no. 5, by means of Revision No. 13/2004-05 under Section
219 of the LR Act before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The Divisional Commissioner,
by his order dated 28.08.2006, allowed the revision, set aside the order of remand dated 14.12.2004
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and restored that of the Naib Tahsildar dated 31.05.2004,
rejecting the petitioner's restoration application. The order of the Divisional Commissioner was
challenged by the petitioner further in revision to the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow
by means of Revision No. 2462 (LR)/2005-06. The Board of Revenue, by the order impugned
dated 02.05.2012, dismissed the petitioner's revision and affirmed the Commissioner's order.

8. Aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. A notice of motion was issued vide order dated 22.05.2012. After exchange of affidavits,
the petition came up for admission on 17.11.2016. This Court, vide order dated 17.11.2016,
noticing that pleadings were complete, admitted the writ petition to hearing and stayed operation of
the orders dated 28.08.2016 and 02.05.2012 during the pendency of the writ petition.

10. Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharad
Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, the
State-respondents and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5, the
contesting respondent.

11. A perusal of the record shows that the mutation application was filed by Lal Singh,
respondent no. 5 way back on 10.07.1970 with a case that he was a co-tenureholder recorded along
with Veela son of Tikaram in the land in dispute. Veela had died three years ago and had no son,
daughter or brother. The fifth respondent was in possession over the land in dispute as well. He,
therefore, claimed the mutation on the basis of survivorship apparently, under Section 175 of the
ZA & LR Act, though not said so expressly in the order of 30.09.1970, granting mutation passed by
the Naib Tahsildar. The order of 30.09.1970 shows that it records satisfaction that advertisement of
the application was duly made, but no objection was filed by anyone claiming a right to the land in
dispute. The restoration application was filed by the petitioner, Rajveer Singh, along with Laturi
son of Jhandu, his father's brother, on 18.07.2003, seeking to set aside the order dated 30.09.1970
on ground that the proceedings for mutation taken by respondent no. 5 were behind the petitioner's
back and he had no knowledge of the same. The petitioner had a right to inherit Veela's bhumidhari
upon his demise, being Veela's father's son's son's son, whereas, the other applicant, Laturi, had a
right by inheritance, being Veela's father's son's son. Both these rights were claimed by the
petitioner and the other co-applicant, non-petitioner Laturi, under Section 171(2)(e) ZA & LR Act,
as it seems.

12. The Naib Tahsildar, who has rejected the restoration application, has recorded the fact that
the case was argued before him on three points - firstly, the right to restoration, secondly,
condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 19633 and lastly, if the restoration
application was barred by Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19534 .
The Naib Tahsildar held that mutation had been granted on 30.09.1970 in favour of the fifth
respondent on the basis of succession. Thereafter, consolidation operations had been restored in
Village Narkhi Taluka. The Tahsildar has remarked that the petitioner's case, that he did not have
knowledge of the mutation order for 34 years, appeared to be baseless, particularly when the village
was subjected to consolidation. He has remarked that consolidation operations are gazetted and CH
Form 5 is distributed in the village. The Naib Tahsildar, therefore, held that the petitioner was not
entitled to the benefit of Section 5 Limitation Act. He also opined that the restoration application
was barred by Section 49 CH Act. It is also remarked that the authorities cited by the petitioner,
that would save his case from the bar of Section 49 were in the context of declaratory suits and,
therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner. In the foreshadow of the said remarks, the Naib
Tahsildar rejected the restoration application.

13. In the appeal that was carried by the petitioner under Section 210 of the LR Act, the SubDivisional Officer remarked that the non-petitioner, Laturi, was Veela's father's son's son, whereas
3 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors.
871
the petitioner was the deceased's father's son's son's son. It is also noticed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer that respondent no. 5 is not a member of the deceased Veela's family, but claims right by
survivorship on account of being a co-tenureholder. It is remarked that the right under Section 175
becomes available to a co-tenureholder in a situation alone where there are no heirs entitled to
inherit under Section 171 ZA and LR Act. It is also said by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the fifth
respondent, Lal Singh's father were three brothers, and he would be entitled to inherit along with
Deshraj and Ram Swarup on the basis of succession. It is also said further by the Sub-Divisional
Officer that these facts were suppressed by the fifth respondent from the Mutation Authority, while
securing the mutation order dated 30.09.1970 in his favour. It is also remarked by the SubDivisional Officer that the Mutation Authority, while passing the order dated 30.09.1970, did not,
at all, consider the right of inheritance to Veela's estate under Section 171 ZA & LR Act, and the
mutation order was secured from the Tahsildar by the fifth respondent by playing fraud on the
authority. It is then remarked that an order secured by playing fraud upon an Authority or Court
cannot be saved by the bar of limitation. It was on that basis that the appeal was allowed and also
the petitioner's restoration application, setting aside the order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Naib
Tahsildar. The order of mutation dated 30.09.1970 was also set aside, holding it to be one secured
by fraud. The mutation matter was restored to the Naib Tahsildar's file, with the direction that
rights of parties to succeed to Veela's bhumidhari shall first be considered in accordance with law
under Section 171 ZA & LR Act, and, in the event, there is no heir found, entitled to inherit under
the last mentioned provision, shall the case under Section 175 put forward by the co-sharer on the
basis of survivorship be considered. Mutation orders were directed to be passed afresh in
accordance with the said directions. If mutation, claimed to be wrong or erroneous, is not objected
to during consolidation operations, after denotification, the right to mutation or its correction
cannot be asserted.

14. The fifth respondent carried a revision to the Commissioner of the Division. The
Commissioner has remarked that the order of the Naib Tahsildar rejecting the restoration
application shows that the Naib Tahsildar proceeded on the basis that the claim to mutation put
forward by the petitioner was barred by Section 49 UP CH Act. It is next remarked that mutation
proceedings are summary in nature, which are essentially undertaken in order to safeguard the
interests of the revenue, and for that purpose, correction of the record of rights. These do not, in
any way, affect the title of parties. It is observed then by the Commissioner that regarding the land
in dispute, the petitioner has raised a complicated question of title, for which, the remedy is by way
of a regular suit. Such complicated questions of title are not meant to be decided in summary
proceedings under Section 34 LR Act, and, to do so, is against the law. In proceedings under
Section 34, the authority has limited jurisdiction and the Sub-Divisional Officer did not correctly
exercise his jurisdiction in ordering restoration and the mutation matter to be heard on merits. The
order was erroneous and not sustainable. It is with these remarks that the Commissioner allowed
the revision and restored the Naib Tahsildar's order. The petitioner's revision to the Board failed,
where it has been held that the Naib Tahsildar's order was sound in law. It is also remarked that the
petitioner not taking steps during consolidation operations weakened his case. The Board of
Revenue, therefore, dismissed the revision and affirmed the Commissioner.
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. What we notice, upon a reading of the Sub-Divisional Officer's order, is that he has
remarked that the fifth respondent too had a right of inheritance under Section 171 ZA & LR Act,
being a son's son of Jhandu, with two other of his brothers being Deshraj and Ram Swarup, all of
which he suppressed and claimed by survivorship under Section 175 ZA & LR Act. We think that,
that remark by the Sub-Divisional Officer is ill-founded on facts, though, again, the proceedings
being summary in nature, we do not express any final opinion.

16. Suffice it to notice that Tikaram had three sons, Jhandu, Veela and Revati. The petitioner
represents the branch of Jhandu in the male line of descent. Veela and Revati died issueless.
Tikaram had a daughter as well, named Janki, who was married to a man, also called Jhandu, a
resident of Isauli, Etah. The fifth respondent is Janki's son, and his father, Jhandu appears to have
been confounded for Tikaram's son Jhandu. Therefore, whatever rights respondent no. 5, Lal Singh
might assert would be in the female line of descent of Tikaram, which, prima facie, would be
excluded under Section 171(1)(ii) read with Section 171(2)(a) and 171(2)(h) ZA & LR Act, the
daughter's son being excluded in the presence of the male line. These remarks, we make it clear,
are absolutely tentative, and not decisive of the rights of parties. We had to clarify matters on
account of some confusion that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, since set aside by the
Commissioner, raised. The reasoning of the Commissioner is simple, and it is that, that this matter
involves complicated questions of title, founded on the right of parties to inherit in preference to the
other, or to claim the land in dispute failing the inheritance, by survivorship under Section 175 ZA
& LR Act. No doubt, these kind of questions are beyond the competence of the Mutation
Authorities to decide, considering the fact that in whatever manner and whatever be the
circumstances, the fifth respondent's name came to be recorded way back on 30.09.1970. It was,
apparently, ill-advised for the petitioner, who now claims on the basis of title, to move an
application to set aside that order and seek restoration of the mutation matter 34 years after the
event. The proper course for the petitioner was obviously to bring a title suit, seeking declaration of
his rights that he claims on the basis of inheritance under Section 171 ZA & LR Act. The claim of
the petitioner, pitted against that of the fifth respondent, no doubt, involves a complicated question
of title, which is way beyond the competence of Mutation Authorities to decide. If in these
circumstances, the Mutation Authority found the application to set aside the mutation order, passed
34 years ago, that is to say, 34 years ante-dating the making of the restoration application, to be
hopelessly barred by time, we do not think that any error was committed by the Naib Tahsildar in
taking that view, and, a fortiori, by the Commissioner in restoring the Naib Tahsildar's order.

17. We must say, nevertheless, that the opinion expressed by the Naib Tahsildar about the bar
of Section 49 UP CH Act is only tentative, and if a suit were brought by petitioner to establish his
right under Section 171, and the same is found to be within limitation etc., the remarks of the Naib
Tahsildar about the bar of Section 49 UP CH Act would not bind parties or tie-down the hands of
the Court trying the title suit, in deciding that issue also, if raised independently. For the principle
that complicated questions of title ought not to be gone into or decided by the Mutation Authorities,
we may refer to the authorities in Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another v. Additional
Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division and others and Amritansh Pandey v. State of
U.P. and others.
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