# Uma Shanker Upadhyaya & Ors v. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 1040 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-08-07 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 1152 of 2005 - **Bench:** Abdul Moin - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uma-shanker-upadhyaya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-through-princ-secy-deptt-of-finance-anr-53701 - **Pages:** 15 ## Headnote C.S.C., M.M. Asthana, Vivek Shukla Whether a particular cut off date can be fixed by the Government on the ground of financial constraints while extending financial benefits? Headnotes A. Service Law - Once no challenge has been raised to the GO dated 20.07.2001 as modified on 08.08.2001 and the subsequent GO dated 03.09.2001 only being in consequence to the earlier GOs and providing certain benefits which have also not been claimed by the petitioners as such no benefit can be extended to the petitioners of the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996 even on notional basis. No challenge has been raised to the GO dated 20.07.2001 which provided for the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001. The GO which has been challenged by the petitioners is of 03.09.2001 which only gives the benefit of the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to only those Teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001. No prayer has been made even for grant of revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thus, (Para 14) From a perusal of the three GOs (dated 20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001), it is apparent that the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers was only to be given w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Notional fixation has been extended to only those Teachers who were in service as on 01.07.2001. (Para 8 to 11, 13) All the petitioners had retired prior to 01.07.2001. (Para 12) B. For the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary. (Para 17) Petitioners argue that the proforma fixation for the petitioners can be considered inasmuch as even by the subsequent GOs it is only the proforma fixation which has been extended to those Teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001 and thus, the said cut off date has been fixed arbitrarily by the respondents. (Para 15) Respondents contend that not only in the case of the petitioners but also in the cases of other departments many times decisions are taken as to from which date the benefit of any revised/upgraded pay structure should be given notionally and from which date actually and therefore if the petitioners are allowed the benefits as per their demand then it will have adverse effect on the exchequer and consequently the cut off date has correctly been fixed. (Para 16) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) 8 All. Uma Shankar Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. 1041 Case Law Cited ## Text _Characters 0–39,843 of 48,779. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39843 for what follows._ 1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 22. In view of the above discussion, we are firmly of the opinion that the present special appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules is not maintainable. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ---------- (2025) 8 ILRA 1040 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.08.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. Writ A No. 1152 of 2005 Uma Shanker Upadhyaya & Ors. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Yogendra Misra, Pankaj Kumar Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., M.M. Asthana, Vivek Shukla Whether a particular cut off date can be fixed by the Government on the ground of financial constraints while extending financial benefits? Headnotes A. Service Law - Once no challenge has been raised to the GO dated 20.07.2001 as modified on 08.08.2001 and the subsequent GO dated 03.09.2001 only being in consequence to the earlier GOs and providing certain benefits which have also not been claimed by the petitioners as such no benefit can be extended to the petitioners of the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996 even on notional basis. No challenge has been raised to the GO dated 20.07.2001 which provided for the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001. The GO which has been challenged by the petitioners is of 03.09.2001 which only gives the benefit of the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to only those Teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001. No prayer has been made even for grant of revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thus, (Para 14) From a perusal of the three GOs (dated 20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001), it is apparent that the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers was only to be given w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Notional fixation has been extended to only those Teachers who were in service as on 01.07.2001. (Para 8 to 11, 13) All the petitioners had retired prior to 01.07.2001. (Para 12) B. For the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary. (Para 17) Petitioners argue that the proforma fixation for the petitioners can be considered inasmuch as even by the subsequent GOs it is only the proforma fixation which has been extended to those Teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001 and thus, the said cut off date has been fixed arbitrarily by the respondents. (Para 15) Respondents contend that not only in the case of the petitioners but also in the cases of other departments many times decisions are taken as to from which date the benefit of any revised/upgraded pay structure should be given notionally and from which date actually and therefore if the petitioners are allowed the benefits as per their demand then it will have adverse effect on the exchequer and consequently the cut off date has correctly been fixed. (Para 16) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) 8 All. Uma Shankar Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. 1041 Case Law Cited 1. Om Prakash Saxena and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.1743 (SB) of 2011, decided on 13.05.2019 (Para 17) 2. D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 (Para 17) List of Keywords Service, pay parity, retirement. Appearances for Parties For Appellant: Yogendra Misra,Pankaj Kumar Pandey For Respondent: C.S.C.,M M Asthana,Vivek Shukla (Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order dated 04.07.2025. The relevant extract of the order dated 04.07.2025 is reproduced below:- "1. Heard. 2. The petitioners, all retired Teachers of Basic Shiksha Parishad having retired prior to 01.07.2001, are aggrieved by the Government Order dated 29.06.2004, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby their claim for grant of revised pay scales, so far as pay parity has been granted at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001, has been rejected. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the portion of the Government Order dated 03.09.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, where in paragraph 2(1) it has been provided that the benefit of the earlier Government Order shall only be extended to those primary teachers and headmasters who are in service on 01.07.2001. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the pay scales as given to the Central Government teachers to the petitioners also w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that all the petitioners were primary teachers having retired prior to 01.07.2001. A government order dated 20.07.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, was issued in pursuance to the Fifth Pay Commission whereby the pay scales of the Fifth Pay Commission were granted to all the primary and secondary school teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996. At the same time, considering the parity as had been claimed by the said teachers with the Central Government teachers, a revised pay scale was granted w.e.f. 01.07.2001 to the said teachers which, as already indicated above, was at par with the Central Government teachers. The Government Order dated 20.07.2001 provided in Clause 3 that a separate order would be issued for the purposes of admissibility of the pay scales, pay fixation and payment of arrears. 4. Considering clause 3 of the Government Order dated 20.07.2001 another Government Order dated 08.08.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, was issued which, according to the petitioners, extended the benefit of pay scale which had been provided w.e.f. 01.07.2001 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 itself. 5. However, even before the petitioners could be granted the benefit of the said government order dated 08.08.2001 the government order impugned dated 03.09.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, was 1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES issued which provided that the benefit of the revised pay scale, as provided vide government order dated 20.07.2001 i.e. at par with the Central Government teachers to the primary and secondary teachers, would only be admissible to those teachers who are in service on 01.07.2001. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that once the government order dated 20.07.2001 had in fact granted parity to the teachers of the primary and secondary with the Central Government teachers yet the same was provided w.e.f. 01.07.2001 but subsequent thereto vide government order dated 08.08.2001 the benefit of the said pay scales was extended w.e.f. 01.01.1996 consequently there cannot be any occasion for issuance of the government order dated 03.09.2001 whereby restricting the said pay scales to only those teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001 more particularly when the petitioners had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation prior to 01.07.2001 and thus the impugned government order dated 03.09.2001 tends to create a class in the class of the teachers. 7. On the other hand, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 has argued that as the petitioners are retired teachers between 01.01.1996 to 01.07.2001 consequently there are not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 03.09.2001 and that the government order dated 03.09.2001 has correctly been passed. 8. Elaborating the same, the argument of Sri Shukla is that once the petitioners had retired prior to the said pay scale at par with the teachers of the Central Government coming into force i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2001 as such the pension of the petitioners is to be fixed on the basis of the last drawn salary that had been drawn by them and thus there cannot be any occasion for extension of the said revised pay scale as has come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2001 to the petitioners who are all retired teachers. 9. However, before proceeding further the effect of the Government Order dated 08.08.2001 would have to be considered more particularly when the government order dated 20.07.2001 categorically provided in Clause 3 that a separate order would be issued pertaining to pay fixation, payment of arrears etc. and the government order dated 08.08.2001 has been issued considering Clause 3 of the government order dated 20.07.2001. Thus, it would have to be considered as to whether the government order dated 08.08.2001 would only be restricted to Clause 3 of the government order dated 20.07.2001 and not to the actual fixation of revised pay at par with Central Government teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996, as has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners." 3. From perusal of the aforesaid order it thus emerges that the interpretation of the Government Orders dated 20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001 is to be considered i.e. as to whether the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers would be admissible w.e.f. 01.01.1996 or 01.07.2001. 4. Admittedly, all the petitioners retired prior to 01.07.2001. 5. The Government order dated 20.07.2001 on reproduction reads as under:- 8 All. Uma Shankar Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. 1043 "Announcement of giving Pay Scale to teachers as per Fifth Pay Commission No.- Ve.Aa.-2-1262/Das-2001-53/2001 From, V.K. Sharma, Secretary, Finance, U.P. Govt. To, 1- Principal Secretary, Education, U.P. Govt. 2- Secretary, Secondary/Basic Education, U.P. Government 3- Director, Secondary/Basic Education, U.P. Govt. Finance(Finance Commission) Section-2 Lucknow: Date: 20 July, 2001 Subject:- Regarding granting the same pay scale to the teachers of primary and secondary educational institutions of the State as that of the teachers of equivalent level at the Centre, on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. Sir, I am directed to state that on the basis of the decision taken on the recommendations made in the Second Report (Partial)/Sixth Report of Pay Committee (1997-99), revised pay scales have been approved for the teachers of educational institutions of the State w.e.f 11-1996 vide Government Order No.- Ve.Aa.-2-1007/Das-17G-98, dated: 10th July, 1998 and Government Order No.- Ve.Aa.-2-1282/Das-17 (G)-98, dated: 07th October, 1998. 2. After due consideration of the demand of teachers of primary and secondary educational institutions of the State regarding granting pay scale equal to that of the equivalent teachers of Central Government on the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Governor is pleased to accord his approval for amending the pay scale of teachers mentioned in Column-1 of the annexed table from the pay scales admitted to them from 1.1.1996, mentioned in Column-2, as per the pay scales mentioned in Column-3, w.e.f. 01st July, 2001. 3. As per above, the necessary government orders will be issued separately for the concerned teachers regarding admissibility of Regular Grade/ Selection Grade and Promotional Grade, process of pay fixation and payment of arrears etc. in the amended pay scales. Enclosures:- As above Sincerly, V.K. Sharma, Secretary, Finance Annexure to Government Order No.- Ve.Aa.2-1262/ Das-2001-53/2001, Dated: July 20, 2001 Designation Pay Scale applicable from 1-1-1996 (Rs.) Amended Pay Scale applicable from 1-7-2001 (Rs.) Basic Education 1- Primary Teacher A- Regular Grade B- Selection Grade 3600-85-4450100-5350 4000-85-4680100-5780 4500-125-7000 5000-150-8000 2- Principal of Primary/ Teacher of Upper Primary A- Regular Grade B- Selection Grade 4250-100-5150125-6400 4625-125-6750 5500-175-9000 6500-200-10500 3- Headmaster of Upper Primary A- Regular Grade B- Selection Grade 4625-125-7000 4800-150-7650 6500-200-10500 7500-250-12000 Secondary Education 1- L.T. Teacher A- Regular Grade B- Selection Grade C-Promotional Grade 4500-125-7000 5500-175-8650 6500-200-10500 5500-175-9000 6500-200-10500 7500-250-12000 2- Lecturer A- Regular Grade B- Selection Grade C-Promotional 5500-175-8650 6500-200-10500 8000 -275 - 13500 6500-200-10500 7500-250-12000 8000-275-13500 1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Grade 3- Headmaster of High School A- Regular Grade B- Selection Grade 6500-200-10500 8000-275-13500 7500-250-12000 8000-275-13500 4- Principal A- Regular Grade B- Selection Grade 8000-275-13500 10000-32515200 10000-32515200 R.S. Singh Special Secretary, Finance." (Translation by the Court) 6. The Government order dated 08.08.2001 on reproduction reads as under:- "Procedure for Pay Fixation of Teachers No.: Ve.Aa.-2-1432/Das-2001-53/2001 From, V.K. Sharma, Secretary, Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh. To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Secondary /Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh 3. The Director, Secondary/Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh . Finance (Pay Commission) Section-2 Lucknow: Date: 08 August 2001 Subject: Procedure for fixation of pay in the amended pay scales sanctioned w.e.f. 01 July 2001 for the teachers of primary and secondary educational institutions of the State. Sir, I am directed to state in reference to the aforementioned subject that vide Government Order No. Ve.Aa.-21262/Das-2001-53/2001 dated 20 July 2001, orders have been issued for amending the pay scales of primary and secondary school teachers of the State w.e.f. 01 July 2001. In continuation of Para 3 of the aforesaid Government Order dated 20 July 2001 and in accordance with the Annexure thereto, the Hon'ble Governor is pleased to accord approval for the admissibility of the sanctioned amended pay scales (Regular Grade/ Selection Grade / Promotional Grade) subject to the following conditions : (1) The amended pay scale shall be admissible only to those teaching posts which are mentioned in Column-1 of the Annexure to aforesaid Government Order dated 20 July 2001. (2) All conditions and restrictions prescribed in the pay scale applicable from 01.01.1996 for the admissibility of the Selection Grade/Promotional Grade shall continue to remain applicable for the admissibility of the amended Selection Grade/Promotional Grade. (3) If there exists a combined cadre of teaching and non-teaching posts, and the pay scale of the teaching post has been upgraded under the aforementioned Government Order dated 20 July 2001, then the upgraded pay scale shall be admissible to the incumbents of the combined cadre only upon assuming the teaching post on the basis of seniority. (4) If the pay scale of any post of a feeding cadre, under the above Government Order dated 20 July 2001, becomes higher than that of its promotional post, then under the existing provisions, the incumbents officiating on the promotional post shall have the option to revert to their previously held post. 2. I am further directed to state that following procedure shall be adopted for fixation of pay and payment of arrears 8 All. Uma Shankar Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. 1045 in the above sanctioned amended pay scales : (1) The pay of concerned incumbent in the pay scale amended w.e.f. 01 July 2001, shall be fixed in accordance with Audit Instruction No. 4 given below to Fundamental Rule 22 of the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part 2-4. The concerned incumbent shall have the right to exercise an option under Fundamental Rule 23(1) i.e. he may opt for the amended pay scale either from 01 July 2001 or from the date of any subsequent increment in the existing pay scale. However, the option once exercised in this regard, shall be treated as final. The last date for exercising the option shall be within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of this Government Order. If no option is submitted by any teacher within the stipulated time period, it shall be deemed that he has opted to receive the amended pay scale w.e.f. 01 July 2001 subject to admissibility. (2) As a result of pay scale fixation in the amended pay scale, the increased amount of salary (if any) for the period from 01 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 shall be deposited in the Provident Fund account of the concerned incumbent. If any incumbent is not a member of the Provident Fund, the said amount shall be given to him in the form of National Savings Certificate (NSC); however, the portion of the amount for which NSC is not available, shall be paid in cash. (3) The cash payment of enhanced pay shall be made along with the salary for the month of January 2002 (which will be payable in February 2002). Sincerely, V.K. Sharma Secretary, Finance" (Translation by the Court) 7. The Government order dated 03.09.2001 on reproduction reads as under:- "Fifth Central Pay Commission- Equal pay scales to be provided at equivalent levels. Number - Ve.Aa.-2-1650/Das -2001- 53/2001 From, Anand Mishra, Secretary, Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh. To , 1- Principal Secretary, Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh. 2- Secretary Secondary Education/Basic Education,Government of Uttar Pradesh. 3- Director, Secondary Education/Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh. Finance (Pay Commission) Section - 2 Lucknow: Dated 03 September, 2001 Subject: Regarding granting the same pay scale to the teachers of primary and secondary educational institutions of the State as that of the teachers of equivalent level at the Centre on the basis of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. Sir, With reference to the abovementioned Government Order No. Ve.Aa.- 2-2162/Das-2001-53/2001, dated 20 July, 2001 and Government Order No. Ve.Aa.-21432/Das-2001-53/2001, dated 08 August, 2001, I am directed to convey that after due consideration the Governor is pleased to approve the amendment of pay scales for Basic Education teachers mentioned in the table annexed to the Government Order dated 20 July 2001, according to the table annexed with this Government Order. 2. Paragraph 2(1) of Government Order No. Ve.Aa.-2-1432/Das-2001- 1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 53/2001, dated 8 August, 2001, regarding the pay fixation of Primary and Secondary Education teachers of the State in the amended pay scales effective from 01 July, 2001, shall stand amended as follows: (1) The pay of such teachers of Primary Education, mentioned in Column 1 of the Annexure to this Government Order, who were in service on 01 July, 2001, shall be fixed from the pay scales shown in Column 2 to the pay scales mentioned in Column 3 on notional basis from 01.01.1996 or afterwards date of appointment. Similarly, the pay of such teachers of Secondary Education, who were in service on 01 July, 2001, shall be fixed from the pay scale shown in Column 2 of the Annexure to Government Order No. Ve.Aa.-2-1262/Das-2001-53/2001, dated 20 July, 2001 to the pay scale in Column 3, on notional basis from 01.01.1996 or the afterwards actual date of appointment. Thus the payment of pay calculated after pay fixation on notional basis w.e.f. 01 July 2001 shall be made as per the provisions of Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of Government Order No. Ve.Aa.-2-1432/Das-200153/2001, dated 08 August, 2001. As per above arrangement, no arrear shall be payable for the period from 01 January, 1996 to 30 June, 2001 in consequence of notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996. (2) Government Orders regarding amendment/admissibility in the current provisions of selection grade and promotional grade for Basic Education teachers will be issued separately. 3. The above-mentioned Government Orders be presumed amended up to above extent, and all their other terms and conditions shall remain applicable as these are. Enclosure: As above. Sincerely Anand Mishra, Secretary, Finance. Annexure to Government Order No. Ve.Aa.-2-1650/Das-2001-53/2001, dated 03 September, 2001 Designation Existing Pay Scale applicable w.e.f. 0101-1996 (Rs.) Amended pay scale w.e.f. 1-72001 (Rs.) 1 2 3 Basic Education 1- Primary Teacher (a) Regular Grade (b) Selection Grade (c) Promotional Grade 2Headmaster Primary / Teacher Upper Primary (a) Regular Grade (b) Selection Grade (c) Promotional Grade 3- Headmaster Upper 3600-854450-1005350 4000-854680-1005780 4250-1005150-1256400 4625-1256750 4625-1257000 4800-1507650 4500-1257000 5000-1508000 5500-1759000 5500-1759000 6500-20010500 7500-25012000 8500-20010500 7500-25012000 8000-27513500 8 All. Uma Shankar Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. 1047 Primary (a) Regular Grade (b) Selection Grade (c) Promotional Grade R.S. Singh Special Secretary, Finance." (Translation by the Court) 8. From perusal of the Government Order dated 20.07.2001, it emerges that the said Government Order had been issued on the demand of the Teachers of Primary and Secondary Education Institutions regarding granting pay scales equal to that of equivalent level Teachers of the Central Government on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission. His Excellency the Governor had accorded approval for amending the pay scales of the Teachers mentioned in Column 1 of the annexed table from the pay scales applicable to them from 01.01.1996 mentioned in Column 2 w.e.f. 01.07.2001. However, Clause 3 of the Government Order dated 20.07.2001 provided that the necessary government orders would be issued separately for the concerned teachers regarding admissiblity of regular scale/selection grade and promotional grade. However, there cannot be any dispute that the said pay scales were to come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2001. 9. So far as the petitioners are concerned their pay scales as applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was Rs.3600-5350 to be amended to Rs.4500-7000 but w.e.f. 01.07.2001. 10. Vide Government Order dated 08.08.2001 the earlier government order was reiterated i.e. the pay scales being brought at par with those of the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Thus, even this Government Order dated 08.08.2001 indicates that the said amended pay scales were to come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2001. 11. The aforesaid two government orders were followed by the Government Order dated 03.09.2001 which specifically provided that the pay scales of Teachers of Primary Education mentioned in Column 1 of the Annexure to the Government Order dated 20.07.2001 would be given only to those Teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001. However, notional fixation shall be given w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to such Teachers who were in service as on 01.07.2001. 12. As already indicated above, all the petitioners had retired prior to 01.07.2001. 13. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid three government orders it is apparent that the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers was only to be given w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Notional fixation has been extended to only those Teachers who were in service as on 01.07.2001. 14. No challenge has been raised to the Government Order dated 20.07.2001 which provided for the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001. The Government Order which has been challenged by the petitioners is of 03.09.2001 which only gives the benefit of the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers on notional basis w.e.f. 1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 01.01.1996 to only those Teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001. No prayer has been made even for grant of revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thus, once no challenge has been raised to the Government Order dated 20.07.2001 as modified on 08.08.2001 and the subsequent Government Order dated 03.09.2001 only being in consequence to the earlier government orders and providing certain benefits which have also not been claimed by the petitioners as such no benefit can be extended to the petitioners of the revised pay scales at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996 even on notional basis. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the proforma fixation for the petitioners can be considered inasmuch as even by the subsequent government orders it is only the proforma fixation which has been extended to those Teachers who were in service on 01.07.2001 and thus, the said cut off date has been fixed arbitrarily by the respondents. 16. Responding to the said argument regarding fixing of the cut off date for grant of even proforma benefit Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has referred to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit to contend that not only in the case of the petitioners but also in the cases of other departments many times decisions are taken as to from which date the benefit of any revised/upgraded pay structure should be given notionally and from which date actually and therefore if the petitioners are allowed the benefits as per their demand then it will have adverse effect on the exchequer and consequently the cut off date has correctly been fixed. 17. However, even though no case has been set forth in the entire writ petition pertaining to the said argument as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners yet as to whether a particular cut off date can be fixed by the Government on the ground of financial constraints while extending financial benefits has been considered threadbare by this Court in the case of Om Prakash Saxena and another vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.1743 (SB) of 2011 decided on 13.05.2019 wherein after considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment of D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305 it has been held as under:- "35. The argument raised by learned State Counsel that financial constraints would be a valid ground for fixation of a cut off date for grant of benefits as has been done with the issue of the Government Order dated 28.02.2007 with prospective effect. Though this ground has not been specifically taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, yet the said ground has been taken during the course of argument and consequently can very well be considered by a Court of law while deciding the case keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Subbarayudu (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not 8 All. Uma Shankar Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. 1049 normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal) 6. No doubt in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case, as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal. 7. There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. 8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad , Union of Indian v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (Vide SCC Para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (Vide SCC Para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result." 36. The ground raised on behalf of the respondents that extending of the benefit of the Government Order dated 28.02.2007 to the petitioners who received end of session benefit in terms of the earlier Government Order would put a large financial burden on the State inasmuch as all such teachers who were also given end of session benefit in terms of the earlier Government Orders would also stake their claim for extension of the benefit of the Government Order dated 28.02.2007 and thus consciously the Government Order dated 28.02.2007 has been given prospective effect is a valid ground. In this regard, the position of law is no longer resintegra keeping in view the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are being discussed below which have clearly held that a cut off date can be introduced on the ground of financial implication. 37. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath Goyal (supra) has upheld the cut off date which was introduced on the ground of financial implication. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under:- "26. It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government/ State Governments to limit the benefits only to employees, who retire or die on or after 1.4.1995, after calculating the financial implications thereon, was either irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the center or at the State level. 27. Even by O.M. dated 19.10.1993, all that happened was that a 1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES portion of the dearness allowance linked to average Consumer Price Index of 729.91 obtaining as on 1.3.1988 (i.e. 20% of the basic pay) was treated as dearness pay. This would count only for reckoning the emoluments for the purpose of calculating retirement-cum-death gratuity under the applicable rules and for no other purpose. This change was brought into effect from 16.9.1993. 28. Even at that time, interestingly, the benefits were not made admissible from 1.3.1988, i.e. the date of the Average Consumer Price Index of 729.91, but from a much further date i.e. 16.9.1993. The Central Government adopted the same policy while issuing the O.M. dated 14.7.1995. Although, dearness allowance linked to the All India Average Consumer Price Index 1201.66 (as on 1.7.1993), was treated as reckonable part of dearness allowance for the purpose of calculating the death-cum-retirement gratuity, the benefit was actually made available to the employees who retired or died on or after 1.4.1995. Similarly, the increase in the ceiling of gratuity was a mere consequential step, which was also made applicable from 1.4.1995. As we have already noticed, 1.4.1995 was the date suggested by the Fifth Central Pay Commission ("Pay Commission") in its Interim Report. The Central Government took a conscious stand that the consequential financial burden would be unbearable. It therefore, chose to taper down the financial burden by making the benefits available only from 1.4.1995. It is trite that, the final recommendations of the Pay Commission were not ipso facto binding on the Government as the Government had to accept and implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission consistent with its financial position. This is precisely what the Government did. Such an action on the part of the Government can neither be characterized as irrational, nor as arbitrary so as to infringe Article 14 of the Constitution. 29. D.S. Nakara (supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classifications of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/ groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. However, it must be noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent judgments of this Court have considerably watered down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara as we shall see later in T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy ("Veerasamy"). In any event this is not a case of a continuing benefit like pension; it is a one-time benefit like gratuity. 30. In Union of India v. P.N. Menon, while implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with regard to dearness pay linked to average index level 272, which was to be counted as emoluments for 8 All. Uma Shankar Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Anr. 1051 pension and gratuity under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Central Government had fixed a certain cut-off date and directed that only officers retiring on or after the specified date were entitled to the benefits of the dearness pay being counted for the purpose of retirement benefits. This was challenged as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court turned down the challenge and observed: "Not only in matters of revising the pensionary benefits, but even in respect of revision of scales of pay, a cut-off date on some rational or reasonable basis, has to be fixed for extending the benefits. This can be illustrated. The Government decides to revise the pay scale of its employees and fixes the 1st day of January of the next year for implementing the same or the 1st day of January of the last year. In either case, a big section of its employees are bound to miss the said revision of the scale of pay, having superannuated before that date. An employee, who has retired on 31st December of the year in question, will miss that pay scale only by a day, which may affect his pensionary benefits throughout his life. No scheme can be held to be foolproof, so as to cover and keep in view all persons who were at one time in active service. As such the concern of the court should only be, while examining any such grievance, to see, as to whether a particular date for extending a particular benefit or scheme, has been fixed, on objective and rational considerations." 31. In Action Committee South Eastern Railway Pensioners v. Union of India, it was held that, on merger of a part of dearness allowance as dearness pay on average price index level at 272 with reference to different pay ranges, fixing a cut-off date in such a manner was not arbitrary and the principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara was not applicable. In this connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India, State Government Pensioners' Assn. v. State of A.P., and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn. v. Union of India, are apt. In all these cases, the prescription of a cutoff date for implementation of such benefits was held not to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan v. Amritlal Gandhi, this Court went so as far as to note that: "...Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990. 33. More recently, in Veerasamy, this Court observed that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes. 34. In State of Punjab v. Boota Singh ("Boota Singh") after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara to K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, it was held that D.S. Nakara should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of 1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. 35. In State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta where one of us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary. 36. In Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn., a Division Bench of this Court said, even for the purpose of effecting promotion, the fixing of a cut-off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not make cut-off dates violative of Article 14. 37. In the instant case before us, the cut-off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contention that the fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14." 38. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) has held as under:- "75.