# Sita Ram Sharma & Ors v. State Of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-09
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 10689 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sita-ram-sharma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53166
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Re-employment-Selection for
constable(GD)
U.P.
Police
2018Petitioners denied pay protection under
Government
Order
dated
23.12.2020
while similarly situated candidates in
earlier training batch were granted the
benefit -Petitioners who were ex-army
personnel
selected
under
the
same
recruitment
advertisement
for
constable(GD) U.P. Police 2018, form a
homogeneous class with others who were
appointed earlier-Denial of pay protection
solely based on administrative delay in
training and appointment caused by the
pandemic
violates
Article
14
of
the
constitution-Government
order
being
prospective
cannot
be
applied
to
candidates selected prior to its issuanceHeld, entire selection process formed a
homogeneous group-Division into batches
due to administrative decisions(COVID19) cannot justify differential treatmentGovernment order prospective in naturePetitioners entitled to same benefits as
first batch-Directions issued to extend pay
protection within 30 days.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Sita Ram Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
themselves
being
pairokar
of
respective writ petitioners.

14. The cost shall be paid within a
week before High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad and compliance affidavit shall
be filed which will be kept in records of
this writ petitions. In case of default,
Registrar General of this Court is directed
to take appropriate steps for recovery from
deponent/pairokar of each Writ Petitions.

15.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners in each Writ Petitions will
inform
about
this
order
to
deponent/pairokar.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 10689 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 19731 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 19646 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 20429 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 18826 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 2701 of 2025

Sita Ram Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Re-employment-Selection for
constable(GD)
U.P.
Police
2018Petitioners denied pay protection under
Government
Order
dated
23.12.2020
while similarly situated candidates in
earlier training batch were granted the
benefit -Petitioners who were ex-army
personnel
selected
under
the
same
recruitment
advertisement
for
constable(GD) U.P. Police 2018, form a
homogeneous class with others who were
appointed earlier-Denial of pay protection
solely based on administrative delay in
training and appointment caused by the
pandemic
violates
Article
14
of
the
constitution-Government
order
being
prospective
cannot
be
applied
to
candidates selected prior to its issuanceHeld, entire selection process formed a
homogeneous group-Division into batches
due to administrative decisions(COVID19) cannot justify differential treatmentGovernment order prospective in naturePetitioners entitled to same benefits as
first batch-Directions issued to extend pay
protection within 30 days.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. UOI Vs Anil Prasad (2022) 5 SCC 461

2. Manilal Vs The St. of Raj. & ors.(2024) 0 SC
764

3. Firangi Prasadh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2011) 2
UPLBEC 987

4. Mahesh Naryan & ors.Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(Writ A No. 55606 of 2008)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel.

2. By means of above writ petitions
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners who were selected for Constable
GD in U.P. Civil Police 2018 are aggrieved
for the discriminatary stand taken by
respondents in not awarding them pay
protection in terms of last pay drawn by
them as ex-army personnel. All the
petitioners were selected and appointed in
the category of ex- army men and submit
that if as a result of the same selection,
selectees are sent in four batches for
training at different point of time, the State
is not justified in awarding pay protection
to first batch of trainees and denying the
same to other trainees only on the ground
that Government Order decided for not
giving a pay protection to ex- servicemen
with effect from a subsequent date.

3. It is submitted that after
selection was held selected candidates were
required to be sent for training, but due to
the then prevailing circumstances for
Pandemic Covid-19 the U.P. Directorate
Police Training vide its order dated 25th
July, 2020 divided selectees in four batches
to be sent for training on different dates for
different period. The first batch was sent
for training in August, 2020 for the period
of six months, second batch was sent for
training in March, 2021 for the period of
six months, the third batch was sent for
training in October 2021 for six months
and last and fourth batch was sent for
training in May, 2022 for six months.

4. The petitioners before this
Court claim to have been sent for training
in second batch, which started from
March, 2021 and lasted for six months till
September, 2021. While first batch was
completing its training appointment order
got issued in their respect prior to the
Government order dated 23rd December,
2020, the date when Government Order
got issued, in which it was decided that
no more pay protection shall be granted
to the selectees, who are ex army
personnel.
The
Government
Order
provided further that it will come into
force with immediate effect. The relevant
paragraph of the Government Order as
contained in paragraph 22 is reproduced
hereunder:

 "उपय टक्त प्रस्ति-1 में वधर्टत तथ्यों को ध्यान में
िखते हुये शासन स्ति पि सम्यक् धवचािोपिान्त धलये गये धनर्टय के
क्रम में म झे यह कहने का धनदेश हुआ है धक िाज्य सिकाि की
सेवा में र्ूतपूवट सैधनकों का प नयोजन धकये जाने की दशा में उनके
वेतन धनिाटिर् के सांिांि में िाज्यपाल महोदया द्वािा धनम्नवत
प्रधक्रया धनिाटरित किने की स्वीकृधत प्रदान की गयी हैः-

 (1) सेना से सेवाधनवृत सैन्य कधमटयों का िाज्य
सिकाि की सेवा में प नयोजन होने पि उन्हें उस पद के वेतनमान में
ही वेतन ग्राह्य होगा धजस पद पि उनका प नयोजन हुआ है।
सेवाधनवृधत के पूवट िारित पद के वेतनमान का सांिक्षर् नहीं धकया
जायेगा।

 (2) ऐसे प नयोधजत सैन्य पेंशि धजनकी पूिी पेंशन
वेतन धनिाटिर् हेत उपेक्षार्ीय (ignored) है, का वेतन
प नयोजन के पद के वेतनमान के न्यूनतम पि धनिाटरित धकया
जायेगा।

 (3) ऐसे प्रकिर् धजनमें वेतन धनिाटिर् हेत पूिी
पेंशन उपेक्षर्ीय (ignored) नहीं है, उनमें प नयोजन पि
प्रािधम्र्क वेतन सेवाधनवृधत के पूवट प्राप्त वेतन के प्रक्रम पि
धनिाटरित धकया जायेगा, पिन्त -

 (I) यधद प नयोजन के पद के वेतनमान में ऐसा
प्रक्रम उपलब्ि नहीं है, तो उक्त प्रक्रम के िीक नीचे वाले प्रक्रम
पि वेतन धनिाटरित धकया जायेगा।

 (ii) यधद प नयोजन के पद के वेतनमान का
अधिकतम सेवाधनवृधत के पूवट आहरित वेतन से कम है, तो
प नयोजन के पद के वेतनमान के अधिकतम पि वेतन धनिाटरित
धकया जायेगा।

 (iii) यधद प नयोजन के पद के वेतनमान का न्यूनतम
सेवाधनवृधत के पूवट आहरित अधन्तम वेतन से अधिक है, तो
4 All. Sita Ram Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
 वेतन धनिाटिर् प नयोजन के पद के न्यूनतम पि धकया
जायेगा।

 उपिोक्तान साि धनिाटरित होने वाले वेतन में से, सैन्य
सेवा से प्राप्त पेंशन का वह र्ाग जो उपेक्षर्ीय (ignored) नहीं
है, घर्ा धदया जायेगा।

 (4) िाज्य सिकाि की सेवा में प नयोधजत सैन्य पेंशनि
उपिोक्तान साि धनिाटरित वेंतन के अधतरिक्त अपनी पूिी पेंशन अन्य
सेवानैवृधतक लार् सधहत आहरित किते िहेंगे।

 4- उपरोक्त आदेश िात्कातिक प्रभाव से िागू
होंगे अिााि शासनादेश तनगाि होने की तिति अिवा उसके
उपरान्ि राज्य सरकार की सेवा में तनयुतक्त पाने वािे भूिपूवा
सैतनकों के प्रकरण इन आदेशों से आच्छातदि होंगे। शासनादेश
की तिति के पूवा राज्य सरकार की सेवा में पुनयोतिि हो चुके
सैन्य पेंशनरों के प्रकरण पुनरूदघतिि (रीओपेन) नहीं तकये
िायेंगे।"

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners argued that after first batch
completed its training in January, 2021, it
was accorded with pay protection and for
example pay fixation of Kuldeep Singh
newly selected constable bearing pno no.
202641386 dated 24th January, 2024 has
been brought on record. It is argued that
after benefit was accorded to the first batch,
the candidates selected in second, third and
fourth batch who were also ex- army
personnel, were not accorded with this
benefit.

6. These above pleadings have
come to be raised in paragraph 14 of the
writ petition, in which details of various
other constables who were benefited with
last pay protection, that they were claiming
as ex-army men. In the counter affidavit in
reply to paragraph 14. Vide paragraph 16, it
has been averred thus:

 " That the contents of paragraph
no. 14 of the writ petition are admitted to
the extent that at the time of appointment of
the constable Kuldeep Singh PNO No.
202641386 in the police department on
11.10.2020 the government order dated
26.8.1977 and 18.5.1983 were effective,
currently, the government order dated
23.12.2020 for the reappointment of the exserviceman
in
the
service
of
state
government is effective, in which it is
clearly mentioned that the above order will
be implemented with immediate effect i.e.
in the cases of the ex-serviceman who have
been appointed in services of the state
government on or after the date of issue of
the Government Order will be covered by
this order"

7. From a bare reading of the
averments made in paragraph 14 of the
Counter affidavit as quoted above, it
transpires that Kuldeep Singh though was
sent for training in first batch was was
offered appointment on 11.10.2020 when
the Government Order dated 26.8.1977 and
18.5.1983 were in force and hence he was
accorded this benefit of pay protection.
However, coming into force of government
order dated 23.12.2020 in respect of reappointment of ex servicemen they were
held not entitled for pay protection of their
previous establishment and hence no such
benefit could be given to the present
petitioner. Thus, it is admitted position of
fact that petitioners have been denied pay
protection only on account of their training
getting completed subsequently to the first
batch of training though the petitioners
were also trainees like first batch who later
on became constables. Thus all appointees
were selected pursuant to selection and
recruitment held in the year 2018 and hence
claimed pay parity.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has
sought to defend the stand taken under the
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government Order deyning pay protection,
relying upon an authority of Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India v. Anil
Prasad 2022 5 SCC 461 wherein Central
Government rules denying benefit of pay
protection to ex army men had been
upheld. It is submitted, therefore thatno
flaw can be found in the action of
government in denying pay protection
benefit so as to hold it to be perverse or
otherwise
discriminatory
or
arbitrary.
Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon
paragraph 4.5 of the judgment, which runs
hereunder:

 "5.4 Therefore, the pay fixation
of the respondent in the government service
was absolutely in consonance with para 8
of the CCS Order 1986. Para 8 does not
provide
that
on
reemployment
in
Government Services a retired Armed
Force personnel would be entitled to his
basic pay being fixed at par with his last
drawn pay. Holding so will violate para 8
of the CCS Order. Under the circumstances
the High Court has committed a grave
error in observing and holding that the
retired
Armed
Forces
personnel
on
reappointment in the government service
would be entitled to the last drawn pay as
Armed Forces personnel. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is unsustainable being
contrary to para 8 of the CCS Order,
1986."

9. Having heard learned counsel
for the respective parties and having
perused the records, I find that in this
petition there is more challenge to the
discrimination being meted out to the
petitioners than the relevant provision
contained
in
the
Government
Order
denying benefit of pay protection to exarmy
personnel
while
getting
reemployment in government non-defence
establishment.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has placed emphasis upon
judgment in the case of Manilal v. The
State of Rajasthan and Others, 2024 0
SC 764, and has contended that merely if
counselling was not held and got delayed
the teachers being similarly and identically
placed pursuant to same selection could not
have been discriminated against. He has
placed reliance upon paragraph 15 of the
Judgment, that runs as under:

 "The appellant's case was more
akin to the case of Rakesh Gaur (supra),
who had taken admission on 05.11.2009.
We are clearly of the opinion on the special
facts of this case that the Division Bench
erred in applying the case of Dinesh
Chandra
Damor
(supra)
instead
of
applying the reasoning in the judgment in
Ankul Singhal (supra) and Rakesh Gaur
(supra) to the facts of this case. As was
held in Ankul Singhal (supra), it will be
improper to discriminate inter se among a
homogenous group of students admitted for
the academic session 2009-10. As was
pointed out therein, it could not be that
those students admitted in the first round of
counselling would be eligible, even with
less than 50% marks in graduation, while
the others admitted in the subsequent
rounds of counselling would not be. It was
on this reasoning that Rakesh Gaur (supra)
was given relief. Rakesh Gaur (supra) was
a case identically situated with the case of
the appellant. What is sauce for the goose
should be sauce for the gander too."

11.
Thus
only
question
that
requires determination by this Court in this
petition is whether pay protection granted
to the selected candidates of the same
4 All. Sita Ram Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
selection while they were sent for training
in earlier point of time could be denied to
the
petitioners
who
got
training
subsequently
as
training
was
being
organized in four different batches on
account of impact of pandemic Covid- 19.
There is no denial at the end of respondents
that all petitioners who were sent in second
batch for training and subsequently were
selected for the post of constable (GD) U.P
Police under the same selection pursuant to
the same advertisement. The training is
part-exercise
undertaken
for
giving
appointment to such selected candidates
and once the candidate is selected training
takes place as a result of consideration
being placed in select list finally published
and declared. Thus no more any stage of
selection remained to be attended once
selected list was prepared for the candidate
to be sent for training for appointment
purposes. It is, therefore, part and parcel of
exercise to offer appointment to the
selected candidates, and therefore, in the
considered view of the Court, respondents
on their own in administrative exercise of
power if decided to bifurcate trainess in
different cluster and groups to be sent on
different dates for training and upon
completion of training successfully such
trainees were being offered appointment,
they should definited not be discriminated
against in the matter of service benefits,
like
pay-scale,
allowance
and
other
emoluments that are admissible to post in
question. Even in the matter of seniority,
the select list is only to be followed. The
judgment that has been cited in the case of
Manilal (supra) squarely covers the case of
petitioners'. The Court therein had held that
discrimination
inter
se
amongst
homogeneous group cannot be approved.
Thus all the selectees pursuant to the same
selection would form a homogeneous group
and
their
appointment
is
only
a
consequential result of training course
subject to their rejection during training.
Once a homogeneous group is sent for
training, all the members are to be treated
alike.

12. Any classification on the basis
of cluster or groups being sent for training
would hit Article 14 of the constitution as it
would not form a reasonable classification
for the purposes of giving benefit to
identically placed employees. A well
settled rule of equality is that unlike cannot
be treate alike and identically placed are to
be treated alike for pay parity and to be
offered service benefits.

13. In the matter of Firangi
Prasadh v. State of U.P and Others
(2011) 2 UPLBEC 987, this Court has held
that for the fault of appointing authority in
issuing
appointment
letter,
petitioners
cannot be put to a disadvantageous
position. Although this matter related to
regularization but since management had
issued delayed appointment orders and
even beyond cut off date of regularization
rules, all were treated alike to be given
benefit of regularization. This judgment has
further been followed in the case of
Mahesh Naryan and Others v. State of
U.p. and Others (Writ A No. 55606 of
2008), decided on 19.12.2019, in which all
the applicants of one advertisement upon
being selected were taken to form a
homogeneous group to give benefitof old
pension scheme for the reason that
advertisement and selection took place
prior to scrapping off the old pension
scheme even though appointment orders
issued subsequently.

14. In such above view of the
matter while I do no find any thing
discriminatory in government order in its
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application so far as denial of pay
protection is concerned to ex-army men,
but government order would apply only to
those cases where candidates were selected
after its issuance. All those who have been
sent for training to be ultimately given
appointment will form one homogeneous
group to be privileged with all such benefits
including pay protection and their claim will
not yet hit by the government order.

15. In so far as judgment cited by
learned standing counsel, I do not find any
quarrel about the same, qua the law laid down
therein because I am also of the view that
government order need not be set aside in
special circumstances of this case, rather it is
held to be not applicable to the present case.

16. In view of above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. Respondents no. 3 is
directed to surrender benefit of last pay
protection to the petitioners as has been given
to the first batch of trainees pursuant to U.P.
Police
Constable
Recruitment
2018.Appropriate order shall be passed and
consequential benefit will be accorded to the
petitioners within maximum period of thirty
days from the date of presentation of certified
copy of this order.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 560
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 16760 of 2023

Naved Akhtar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Narendra Kumar, Sri Pradeep Kumar
Maurya, Sri Ramesh Narayan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226---Writ petition against the impugned
order rescinding the contract of employment of the
petitioner on the ground that he had been found
negligent in discharge of his duties as a contract
employee--- Show cause notice issued to the
petitioner for remaining absent for seven days---
Petitioner submitted reply appending therewith the
prescription paper of 'advised bed rest' by the
doctor but no consideration has been accorded
to the reply and even the medical advise was
not even referred to in the order impugned---
The medical prescription for bed rest as advised
by the medical officer of the district hospital
itself has not been taken into consideration and
the decision has been taken to rescind the
contract of the petitioner arbitrarily holding him
to be guilty of negligence in discharge of duties-
--Impugned order cannot be sustained in law
and
accordingly
is
hereby
quashed---
respondents are directed to consider the
reinSt.ment of the petitioner as contract
employee and pass appropriate orders in the
light of the circular dated 7th March, 2019.
(Para 7, 8 & 9) (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla,
learned Advocate holding brief of Sri
Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has assailed the order dated 24th
May, 2022 passed by the Chief Medical
Officer, Meerut rescinding the contract of
employment of the petitioner as a 'Ward
Boy' on the ground that he had been found
negligent in discharge of his duties as a