# Ram Dular & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 534
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-25
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 2306 of 2004
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-dular-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47443
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Pay-scale revision vide GO
dated 20.07.2001 - Extension of benefit
thereof w.e.f. 01.01.1996 - However,
restriction imposed limiting its benefit to
the employee who have retired on or after
01.07.2001 - Validity of GO challenged -
Held, there is no rational basis extending
the benefit of revision of pay-scale only to
those employees who have retired on or
after 01.07.2001 and restricting for those
employees have retired on or before
01.07.2001 - There is patently no rational
nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the impugned Government
Orders - It tried to create class within the
class, which is not permissible in the eyes
of law. (Para 21 and 22)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mind or without calling for necessary
inputs.

34.

As
noticed
above,
the
recommendations, made by such statutory
Selection Committee comprising of the
persons, as elaborated above, by dint of the
very
nature
of
composition
of
the
Committee, are to be placed at a higher
pedestal. But the fact remains that all such
recommendations and views are subject to
the orders to be passed or decision to be
taken by the Competent Authority in terms
of Rule 9(4) of the Rules 2011 as amended
in the year 2014. Therefore we do not find
ourselves
in
agreement
with
this
submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.

35. For the discussion made and the
reasons given above, the writ petition is
allowed.

36. The order dated 11.10.2019 as is
available at page 53 of the writ petition and
the communication dated 24.10.2019 as is
available at page 52 of the writ petition are
hereby quashed.

37. The Competent Authority under
Rule 9(4) of Administrative Tribunals
(Procedure for Appointment of Members),
Rules 2011 as amended in the year 2014
vide notification dated 21.03.2014 will thus
take decision afresh in the matter for grant
of extension of term of appointment of the
petitioner as Judicial Member of the CAT
as early as possible, say within a period of
ten weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before the authority
concerned.

38. In the facts of the case, there will
be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 2306 of 2004
connected with
Service Single No. 4953 of 2006

Ram Dular & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. L.P. Misra, Shobh Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Niraj Chaurasiya, V.K. Bajpai

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Pay-scale revision vide GO
dated 20.07.2001 - Extension of benefit
thereof w.e.f. 01.01.1996 - However,
restriction imposed limiting its benefit to
the employee who have retired on or after
01.07.2001 - Validity of GO challenged -
Held, there is no rational basis extending
the benefit of revision of pay-scale only to
those employees who have retired on or
after 01.07.2001 and restricting for those
employees have retired on or before
01.07.2001 - There is patently no rational
nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the impugned Government
Orders - It tried to create class within the
class, which is not permissible in the eyes
of law. (Para 21 and 22)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. D.S. Nakara & ors. Vs U.O.I. (1983) 1 SCC
305
2. All Manipur Pensioners Association by its
Secretary Vs St. of Manipur; AIR 2019 SC 3338
9 All Ram Dular & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shobh
Nath Pandey and Sri Kaushlendra Yadav,
Advocates for the petitioners and Sri Vivek
Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Useful assistance was provided by Law
Trainee/ Clerk (Ms. Shama Parveen) of this
Court

2. By means of first writ petition i.e.
Writ Petition No.2306 (S/S) of 2004, the
petitioners have prayed for the following
reliefs:-

"(a) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash the Government Orders dated
20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001,
contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 to
the writ petition, to the extent they provide
cut off date as 01.07.2001 for the grant of
the benefit of the amended pay-scale of
Rs.5500-9000, by declaring it arbitrary and
unconstitutional

(b) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus thereby
commanding the opposite parties to extend
the benefit of the amended pay-scale of
Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 01.01.1996 in
accordance with the earlier Government
Order dated 10th July, 1998, contained in
Annexure No.4 to the writ petition and to fix
the pension of the petitioner accordingly at
their respective basic pay."

3. By means of second writ petition
i.e. Writ Petition No.4953 (S/S) of 2006,
the petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.09.2005, contained in Annexure No.1 to
the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned government order
dated 03.09.2001, contained in Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition, to the extent the
petitioners have been deprived from getting
the benefit of revision of the pay-scale in
Vth Pay Commission Report (Central)
w.e.f.
01.01.1996
and
thereafter
the
pensionery benefits accordingly.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing and commanding the opposite
parties to allow the benefit of Vth Pay
Commission
Report
(Central)
to
the
petitioners and thereby the pay of the
petitioners be accordingly fixed in the
revised scale on 01.01.1996 and thereafter
the pensionery benefits of the petitioners be
computed accordingly and the arrears of
the pensionery benefits be also given to
them within some reasonable time which
may be 2 weeks."

4. In both the writ petitions, the
question of law to be considered is the
same and, therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties both the writ
petitions are being decided by a common
judgment and order.

5. The question to be considered is
that as to whether the benefit of pay-scale
revision which has been extended with
effect from 01.01.1996 can be restricted
with effect from 01.07.2001 without having
any rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved.
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Ignoring the unnecessary facts of
both the cases the relevant facts to
adjudicate the controversy in question are
being considered.

7. In both the writ petitions, the
petitioners have retired after 01.01.1996
and before 01.07.2001. However, by mans
of Government Order dated 20.07.2001 and
subsequent Government Orders the benefit
of pay-scale revision has been restricted
with effect from 01.07.2001 saying that the
benefit of pay-scale revision would be
extended with effect from 01.01.1996 to
those employees who have retired on or
after 01.07.2001. All those Government
Orders have been assailed on the ground
that those Government Orders are violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
for creating class within the class for no
cogent reason.

8. In the first writ petition, all the
relevant
Government
Orders
dated
20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001
have been assailed, whereas in the second
writ petition only one Government Order
dated 03.09.2001 has been assailed and the
order dated 22.09.2005 has been assailed
whereby the benefit, so prayed by the
petitioners, has been rejected by the Joint
Director of Education, VIth Region,
Lucknow.

9. Since the very fact that all the
petitioners of both the writ petitions have
been retired on or after 01.01.1996 while
serving on the post of Assistant Teacher in
various Educational Institutions except
petitioner No.1 in the second writ petition
who retired from the post of Principal
(Junior High School), Sohan Lal Inter
College, Lucknow, therefore, there would
be no use to go into the details of the
relevant facts relating to the petitioners
inasmuch as regarding their services as
Assistant Teacher and Principal has not
been disputed by the opposite parties and
the only ground to not providing the benefit
of the pay-scale revision to the petitioners
is that they had been retired from service
on or before 01.07.2001, therefore, they are
not entitled for the benefit of the pay-scale
revision in view of the Government Orders
dated 20.07.2001 and 08.08.2001.

10. Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioners has
drawn attention of this Court towards the
Government
Order
dated
10.07.1998,
which is contained as Annexure No.3 to the
second writ petition, whereby on the basis
of
recommendations
of
the
Pay
Commission, U.P., 1998 the decision has
been taken to provide the benefit of the
pay-scale revision to the teaching and nonteaching
staff
of
the
Educational
Institutions with effect from 01.01.1996.

11. On the basis of the aforesaid
Government
Order
dated
10.07.1998,
another
Government
Order
dated
20.07.2001 (Annexure No.4 of the second
writ petition) has been issued providing the
benefit of the pay-scale revision to the
teachers of the Primary and Secondary
Educational Institutions with effect from
01.01.1996 providing further that the payscale shall be revised with effect from
01.07.2001.

12.

By
means
of
subsequent
Government
Order
dated
08.08.2001
(Annexure No.5 of the second writ
petition), it has been provided that the
benefit of the pay-scale revision shall be
given with effect from 01.01.1996 and
employees concerned would submit their
option as to whether they want to opt the
benefit of such pay-scale revision or they
9 All Ram Dular & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
do not want to opt such revision provided
vide Government Order.

13. As a matter of fact, the
Government
Order
dated
08.08.2001
provides the modalities providing the
benefit of revised pay-scale revision. The
Government Order dated 08.08.2001 has
been modified vide Government Order
dated 03.09.2001 (Annexure No.2 of the
second writ petition), wherein it has been
indicated that the benefit of the revised
pay-scale revision shall be provided to
those teachers who were in the employment
on or after 01.07.2001. It has been further
clarified in this Government Order dated
03.09.2001 that the benefit of pay-scale
revision with effect from 01.01.1996 to
30.06.2001 shall be given on notional basis
as no arrears shall be paid to any of the
employees.

14. Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate has submitted that he has
instructions to say that none of the
petitioners are claiming any arrears of
benefit of revision of pay-scale with effect
from 01.01.1996 to 30.01.2001. He has also
submitted that the petitioners are claiming
the benefit of pay-scale revision with effect
from 01.01.1996 notionally for the reason
that after 01.01.1996 the pay-scale was
revised by the State Government and
whatever the pay-scale was fixed after the
said revision, the petitioners be provided
such pay-scale and on the basis of the said
pay-scale the petitioners be provided the
consequential service benefits except the
arrears of salary.

15. Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioners has
submitted with vehemence that there may
be no rational nexus with the object sought
to
be
achieved
by
the
impugned
Government Orders, pursuant to which the
rider
has
been
imposed
that
those
employees who have retired on or before
01.07.2001 would not be entitled for the
benefit of the pay-scale revision. He has
further submitted that the Government
Order dated 01.07.1998 (supra) clearly
indicates that the benefit of pay-scale
revision would be paid to the employees
with effect from 01.01.1996 without
imposing any rider. Therefore, by means of
the
subsequent
Government
Orders
whereby the aforesaid riders has been
imposed, is not only illegal, discriminatory,
unwarranted and uncalled for but the same
is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India inasmuch as the aforesaid rider
creates class within the class which is not
permissible.

16. Sri O.P. Srivastava has further
submitted that if the authorities impose the
rider that the benefit of the pay-scale
revision would not be paid to those
employees who have retired on or before
01.01.1996, the date when the said benefit
is extended to the employees, the said rider
would have been justified but the rider so
imposed
by
the
Government
Order
03.09.2001 for providing the benefit of
pay-scale revision to the employees retired
on or after 01.07.2001 is absolutely
unwarranted. There is no dispute that the
petitioners were very much in service when
the benefit of pay-scale revision was
extended to the employees i.e. 01.01.1996,
therefore, such discrimination may not be
permitted in the eyes of law.

17. On the other hand, Sri Vivek
Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has submitted that for
providing the benefit of Government Order
dated 10.07.1998, the Government Order
dated 20.07.2001 has been issued revising
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the pay-scale with effect from 01.07.2001
extending the benefit of pay-scale revision
with effect from 01.01.1996 fixing the cut
off date as 01.07.2001. He has further
submitted that as per the subsequent
Government Order dated 08.08.2001 the
options were to be sought from the
employees for extending the benefit of payscale revision with effect from 01.07.2001,
therefore, such options would have been
submitted by those employees who were
working at that point of time. Since the
petitioners have already retired from
service on or before 01.07.2001, so no
options could have been sought from them
and, therefore, the benefit of revision of
pay-scale could have not been extended.

18. On being confronted learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the
Government
Order
dated
10.07.1998
(Annexure No.3 of the second writ
petition), by means of which the benefit of
revision of pay-scale has been given with
effect from 01.01.1996 asking as to why
this benefit can be denied to the petitioners
who were very much in service on or
before
01.01.1996,
Sri
Shukla
has
submitted that since this is a policy
decision, therefore, such benefit could have
not been provided to the petitioners
immediately after 10.07.1998 and such
benefit has been made available to the
employees pursuant to the Government
Order dated 03.09.2001.

19. On that, Sri O.P. Srivastava,
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners
has submitted that if any policy decision is
taken, which is patently violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India creating
class within the class, this Court after
judicial scrutiny may set aside the same. He
has again reiterated that there may not be
absolutely any rational imposing the bar for
not providing the benefit of revision of payscale to the employees who have retired on
or after 01.01.1996. Sri Srivastava has
referred the dictum of the Constitutional
Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in re:D.S.
Nakara and others vs. Union of India
reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 referring
paras 42, 46 & 65, which read as under:-

"42.
If
it
appears
to
be
undisputable, as it does to us that the
pensioners for the purpose of pension
benefits form a class, would its upward
revision permit a homogeneous class to be
divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility
criteria unrelated to purpose of revision,
and would such classification be founded
on
some
rationalprinciple
?
The
classification has to be based, as is well
settled, on some rational principle and the
rational principle must have nexus to the
objects sought to be achieved. We have set
out the objects underlying the payment of
pension. If the State considered it necessary
to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no
rational principle behind it for granting
these benefits only to those who retired
subsequent to that date simultaneously
denying the same to those who retired prior
to that date. If the liberalisation was
considered
necessary
for
augmenting
social security in old age to government
servants then those who retired earlier
cannot be worst off than those who retire
later.
Therefore,
this
division
which
classified pensioners into two classes is not
based on any rational principle and if the
rational principle is the one of dividing
pensioners with a view to giving something
more to persons otherwise equally placed,
it would be discriminatory. To illustrate,
take two persons, one retired just a day
prior and another a day just succeeding the
specified date. Both were in the same pay
bracket, the average emolument was the
9 All Ram Dular & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
same and both had put in equal number of
years of service. How does a fortuitous
circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a
day later will permit totally unequal
treatment in the matter of pension ? One
retiring a day earlier will have to be
subject to ceiling of Rs. 8,100 p a. and
average emolument to be worked out on 36
months' salary while the other will have a
ceiling of Rs. 12,000 p.a. and average
emolument will be computed on the basis of
last ten months average. The artificial
division stares into face and is unrelated to
any principle and whatever principle, if
there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the
objects
sought
to
be
achieved
by
liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this
arbitrary division has not only no nexus to
the liberalised pension scheme but it is
counter productive and runs counter to the
whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal
treatment guaranteed in Art.14 is wholly
violated inasmuch as the pension rules
being statutory in character, since the
specified date, the rules accord differential
and discriminatory treatment to equals in
the matter of commutation of pension. A 48
hours difference in matter of retirement
would have a traumatic effect. Division is
thus both arbitrary and unprincipled.
Therefore the classification does not stand
the test of Art.14.

46. By our approach, are we
making the scheme retroactive ? The
answer is emphatically in the negative.
Take a government servant who retired on
April 1, 1979. He would be governed by the
liberalised pension scheme. By that time he
had put in qualifying service of 35 years.
His length of service is arelevant factor for
computation
of
pension.
Has
the
Government made it retroactive, 35 years
backward compared to the case of a
Government servant who retired on 30th
March, 1979 ? Concept of qualifying
service takes note of length of service, and
pension quantum is correlated to qualifying
service. Is it retroactive for 35 years for
one and not retroactive for a person who
retired two days earlier? It must be
remembered that pension is relatable to
qualifying service. It has correlation to the
average emoluments and the length of
service. Any liberalisation would pro tanto
be retroactive in the narrow sense of the
term. Otherwise it is always prospective. A
statute is not properly called a retroactive
statute because a part of the requisites for
its action is drawn from a time antecedent
to its passing. (see Craies on Statute Law,
sixth edition, p. 387). Assuming the
Government
had
not
prescribed
the
specified date and thereby provided that
those retiring pre and post the specified
date would all be governed by the
liberalised pension scheme, undoubtedly, it
would be both prospective and retroactive.
Only the pension will have to be
recomputed in the light of the formula
enacted in the liberalised pension scheme
and effective from the date the revised
scheme comes into force. And beware that
it is not a new scheme, it is only a revision
of existing scheme. It is not a new retiral
benefit. It is an upward revision of an
existing benefit. If it was a wholly new
concept, a new retiral benefit, one could
have appreciated an argument that those
who had already retired could not expect it.
It could have been urged that it is an
incentive to attract the fresh recruits.
Pension is a reward for past service. It is
undoubtedly a condition of service but not
an incentive to attract new entrants
because if it was to be available to new
entrants only, it would be prospective at
such distance of thirty-five years since its
introduction. But it covers all those in
service who entered thirty-five years back.
Pension is thus not an incentive but a
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reward for past service. And a revision of
an existing benefit stands on a different
footing than a new retiral benefit. And even
in case of new retiral benefit of gratuity
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
past service was taken into consideration.
Recall at this stage the method adopted
when pay-scales are revised. Revised payscales are introduced from a certain date.
All existing employees are brought on to
the revised scales by adopting a theory of
fitments and increments for past service. In
other words, benefit of revised scale is not
limited
to
those
who
enter
service
subsequent to the date fixed for introducing
revised scales but the benefit is extended to
all those in service prior to that date. This
is just and fair. Nowif pension as we view
it, is some kind of retirement wages for past
service, can it be denied to those who
retired earlier, revised retirement benefits
being available to future retirees only ?
Therefore, there is no substance in the
contention that the court by its approach
would be making the scheme retroactive,
because it is implicit in theory of wages.

65. That is the end of the journey.
With the expanding horizons of socioeconomic justice, the socialist Republic and
welfare State which we endeavour to set up
and largely influenced by the fact that the
old men who retired when emoluments
were comparatively low and are exposed to
vagaries of continuously rising prices, the
falling value of the rupee consequent upon
inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by
introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria:
'being in service and retiring subsequent to
the specified date' for being eligible for the
liberalised pension scheme and thereby
dividing
a
homogeneous
class,
the
classification being not based on any
discernible rational principle and having
been found wholly unrelated to the objects
sought to be achieved by grant of
liberalised pension and the eligibility
criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary,
we are of the view that the eligibility for
liberalised pension scheme of being in
service on the specified date and retiring
subsequent to that date' in impugned
memoranda, Exhibits P-I and P-2, violates
Art. 14and is unconstitutional and is struck
down. Both the memoranda shall be
enforced and implemented as read down as
under: In other words, in Exhibit P-1, the
words:

"that
in
respect
of
the
Government servants who were in service
on the 31st March, 1979 and retiring from
service on or after that date"

and in Exhibit P-2, the words:

"the new rates of pension are
effective from 1st April 1979 and will be
applicable to all service officers who
became/become non-effective on or after
that date."

are unconstitutional and are
struck down with this specification that the
date mentioned therein will be relevant as
being one from which the liberalised
pension scheme becomes operative to all
pensioners
governed
by
1972
Rules
irrespective of the date of retirement.
Omitting the unconstitutional part it is
declared that all pensioners governed by
the
1972
Rules
and Army
Pension
Regulations shall be entitled to pension as
computed under the liberalised pension
scheme from the specified date, irrespective
of the date of retirement. Arrears of
pension prior to the specified date as per
fresh computation is not admissible. Let a
writ to that effect be issued. But in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs."

20. Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioners has also
referred para-8 of the dictum of Hon'ble
9 All Ram Dular & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
Apex Court in re: All Manipur Pensioners
Association by its Secretary vs. State of
Manipur reported in AIR 2019 SC 3338,
which reads as under:-

"8. Even otherwise on merits
also, we are of the firm opinion that there
is no valid justification to create two
classes, viz., one who retired pre1996 and
another who retired post1996, for the
purpose of grant of revised pension, In our
view, such a classification has no nexus
with the object and purpose of grant of
benefit
of
revised
pension.
All
the
pensioners form a one class who are
entitled to pension as per the pension
rules.Article 14 of the Constitution of India
ensures to all equality before law and equal
protection of laws. At this juncture it is also
necessary to examine the concept of valid
classification. A valid classification is truly
a valid discrimination. It is true thatArticle
16 of the Constitution of India permits a
valid classification. However, a very
classification must be based on a just
objective. The result to be achieved by the
just objective presupposes the choice of
some
for
differential
consideration/treatment over others.

A classification to be valid must
necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the
distinguishing rationale has to be based on
a just objective and secondly, the choice of
differentiating one set of persons from
another, must have a reasonable nexus to
the objective sought to be achieved. The
test for a valid classification may be
summarised as a distinction based on a
classification founded on an intelligible
differentia,
which
has
a
rational
relationship with the object sought to be
achieved. Therefore, whenever a cutoff date
(as in the present controversy) is fixed to
categorise one set of pensioners for
favourable consideration over others, the
twin test for valid classification or valid
discriminationtherefore must necessarily be
satisfied.
In
the
present
case,
the
classification in question has no reasonable
nexus to the objective sought to be achieved
while revising the pension. As observed
hereinabove, the object and purpose for
revising the pension is due to the increase
in the cost of living. All the pensioners form
a single class and therefore such a
classification for the purpose of grant of
revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. The State
cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from
amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff
date for extension of benefits especially
pensionery benefits. There has to be a
classification founded on some rational
principle when similarly situated class is
differentiated for grant of any benefit.

8.1 As observed hereinabove, and
even it is not in dispute that as such a
decision has been taken by the State
Government to revise the pension keeping
in mind the increase in the cost of living.
Increase in the cost of living would affect
all the pensioners irrespective of whether
they have retired pre1996 or post1996. As
observed hereinabove, all the pensioners
belong to one class. Therefore, by such a
classification/cutoff date the equals are
treated as unequals and therefore such a
classificationwhich has no nexus with the
object and purpose of revision of pension is
unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary
and therefore the said classification was
rightly set aside by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is
required to be observed that whenever a
new benefit is granted and/or new scheme
is introduced, it might be possible for the
State to provide a cutoff date taking into
consideration its financial resources. But
the same shall not be applicable with
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respect to one and single class of persons,
the benefit to be given to the one class of
persons, who are already otherwise getting
the benefits and the question is with respect
to revision."

21. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record and also the dictum of
Hon'ble Apex Court in re: D.S. Nakara
(supra) and All Manipur Pensioners
Association (supra), I am of the considered
opinion that there is no rational basis
extending the benefit of revision of payscale only to those employees who have
retired
on
or
after
01.07.2001
and
restricting for those employees have retired
on or before 01.07.2001 and there is
patently no rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved by the impugned
Government Orders.

22. By means of the impugned
Government Orders and the impugned
order, the State Government/ Authorities
tried to create class within the class, which
is not permissible in the eyes of law. I am
afraid as to how the authorities are treating
those employees/ teachers who retired on
or after 01.01.1996 and on or before
01.07.2001 as one class and the employees
/ teachers who retired on or after
01.01.2001 as another class for providing
the benefit of revision of pay-scale which
has admittedly been extended to the
employees with effect from 01.01.1996. As
a matter of fact, both the set of employees,
as aforesaid, are one class and by means of
any Government order or Government
Policy
those
employees
cannot
be
discriminated. Had the authorities imposed
rider of extending the benefit of revision of
pay-scale to the employees who have
retired on or before 01.01.1996, such rider
would have been sustained for the reason
that on the date when the benefit of
revision of pay-scale was provided those
employees were not in service. However, in
the present case, admittedly all the
petitioners were very much in service when
the benefit of revision of pay-scale was
extended i.e. from 01.01.1996.

23. In view of the above, both the writ
petitions succeed and are allowed.

24. The order dated 22.09.2005
passed by the Joint Director of Education,
VIth Region, Lucknow, which is contained
as Annexure No.1 to the second writ
petition, is hereby set aside/ quashed.

25. The rider so imposed in the
Government Order dated 03.09.2001 to the
effect that the benefit of revision of payscale would be given to those employees
who have retired on or after 01.07.2001 is
hereby declared as non est and the same
may not be read against the petitioners.

26. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the opposite parties
to take appropriate decision in the issue of
the
petitioners
in
the
light of
the
Government
Order
dated
10.07.1998
(Annexure No.3 of the second writ petition)
providing them the benefit of revision of
pay-scale with effect from 01.01.1996
notionally ignoring the such rider imposed
in the Government Order dated 03.09.2001
for the petitioners only.

27. Such appropriate order shall be
passed with expedition preferably within a
period of two months from the date of
presentation of a certified/ computerized
copy of this order.

28. No order as to costs.
----------
9 All Mrityunjai Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
(2021)09ILR A543
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 4132 of 2021

Mrityunjai Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Pratap Singh, Abhishek Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Promotion on the post of
Superintending Engineer - Pendency of
Departmental enquiry - Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) decision -
Adverse entry was not in existence on the
date of meeting of DPC - It's effect -
Held, DPC can consider only such material
which was available before it on or before
the date of DPC - No adverse material of
any kind whatsoever can be considered
which came into the notice before the
competent authority or before the DPC
after the meeting of DPC. (Para 10)
B. Pleading - No specific denial of recital
of writ petition - It's effect - Held, the law
is trite that the specific recital of the
petition should be denied specifically
citing reasons and legal position, if any,
and simple denial is no denial in the eyes
of law. (Para 9)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Delhi Jal Board Vs Mahinder Singh; (2000) 7
SCC 210
2. Brij Nath Pandey Vs St. of U.P.; (2001) 9 SCC
398
3. Gyan Prakash Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
[2018 (6) ADJ 670 (DB) (LB)]
4. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary,
Irrigation & Water Resource Vs Suresh Pandey;
2019 Legal Eagle (ALD) 926
5. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Nand Kumar Singh,
Special Appeal No. 478 of 2010
6. R. K. Singh Vs State of U.P. & ors.1991 Supp
(2) SCC 126

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Rejoinder affidavit sent by the
Registry is taken on record.

3. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed following reliefs:-

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari to quash the
impugned orders dated 04-01-2021 and 0506-2020 passed by the opposite party no.1
contained as annexure no.1 & 2 to this writ
petition.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to open seal cover and
promote the petitioner on the post of
Superintendent
Engineer
in
view
of
recommendation
of
Departmental
Promotion Committee convened on 19-072018 from the date other incumbents were
considered and promoted in pursuance to
recommendation
of
Departmental
Promotion Committee held on 19-07-2018,
with all consequential benefits.

iii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding