# Umesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 795
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 15283 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54789
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Akhilesh Chandra Mishra, C.S.C., Gagan
Mehta, S.B. Singh, Shashank Bhushan
Pandey Chanchal

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of claiming 62 years as age of
retirement as provided to the post of Librarian
on the ground that name of post of Deputy
Librarian was changed to Librarian.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Age of retirement -
Appointed on the post of Deputy Librarian
- Nomenclature of the post of Deputy
Librarian was changed to Librarian -
Claim of 62 years as age of retirement and
other consequential benefits as provided
to Librarian was made - Benefit was
claimed
on
the
basis
of
GO
dated
26.12.1998 - Permissibility :
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held : From a careful perusal of above referred
part of Government Order dated 26.12.1998, it
is evident that it only provides that Deputy
Librarian who were working under pay scale of
Rs. 2000-3200 will be provided pay scale of Rs.
2200-4000 and name of post will be changed as
Librarian. Said Government order does not
provide that all other service benefits would be
granted to such employees after change of
nomenclature. Said Government order is silent
on this issue - Therefore, claim of petitioner
that he ought to have been retired at the age of
62 years does not follow from Government
Order dated 26.12.1998. Accordingly, there is
no illegality when petitioner was retired at the
age of 60 years by giving Session benefit.
[Paras 10 and 11]
(B) Service law - Recovery - Post of
Deputy Librarian - Nomenclature of the
post of Deputy Librarian was changed to
Librarian and petitioner was also granted
pay scale accordingly - Higher pay scale
of
Librarian
paid
to
petitioner
was
directed
to
be
recovered
-
Validity
challenged :
Held : Though there is no absolute bar that
such recovery cannot be made but in the light
of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih
(2014) 8 SCC 883 and considering that it is not
a case of fraud on the part of petitioner and
probably since he has agitated the case that he
may be permitted to work upto the age of 62
years, a scrutiny was made of earlier order
passed in his favour and order of recovery was
passed - Respondents will not make any
recovery of payment made pursuant to higher
pay scale granted to petitioner as well as
consequential financial relief. [Para 15 and 16]
(E- 1)

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih
(2014) 8 SCC 883 - referred to.

List of Acts
Government Order dated 26.12.1998.

List of Keywords
Age of retirement; Date of birth; Change of
name of post; Higher pay scale; Recovery.

Case Arising From
Claim of 62 years as age of retirement as
provided to the post of Librarian.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Aishwarya Kumar
Singh, Manish, Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi,
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : Akhilesh Chandra
Mishra, C.S.C., Gagan Mehta, S.B. Singh,
Shashank Bhushan Pandey Chanchal

## Text

11 All. Umesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
case the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that acquittal in a criminal case could not
automatically make entitled a candidate for
appointment to a post as still it would not
be open to the employer to consider
antecedents
whether
the
candidate
concerned
is
suitable
and
fit
for
appointment to the post. The judgment in
the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (supra) is
not also applicable as it was a case
wherein the candidate suppressed the
material fact of pendency of the criminal
case."

20. Thus, it can be safely said that
the matter needs to be revisited by the
appointing authority in the wake of the
intervening facts relating to acquittal of the
writ petitioner.

21. By saying so, this Court in
no manner whatsoever denudes the
appointing
authority
to
take
its
independent decision taking into account
the over all facts and situation including
the import and impact of the acquittal of
the writ petitioner while satisfying itself
incoming to the conclusion whether it
would
be
a
case
of
according
appointment or not. The said exercise is
to be undertaken by the appointing
authority on its own while dwelling upon
each and every aspect of the matter
within the four-corners of the Rules or
the Government order in force.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 03.04.2023
passed by the Inspector General of Police,
Meerut Zone, Meerut is set aside. Matter
stands remitted back to the authority to pass
a fresh order strictly in accordance with law
within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of the
order.
23. Passing of the order today
would not automatically accord issuance of
the appointment or reinstatement to the writ
petitioner as the same would be subject to
the orders which would be passed by the
authority pursuant to the direction of the
Court.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 795
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 15283 of 2019

Umesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aishwarya Kumar Singh, Manish, Narendra
Kumar Chaturvedi, Rajesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Chandra Mishra, C.S.C., Gagan
Mehta, S.B. Singh, Shashank Bhushan
Pandey Chanchal

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of claiming 62 years as age of
retirement as provided to the post of Librarian
on the ground that name of post of Deputy
Librarian was changed to Librarian.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Age of retirement -
Appointed on the post of Deputy Librarian
- Nomenclature of the post of Deputy
Librarian was changed to Librarian -
Claim of 62 years as age of retirement and
other consequential benefits as provided
to Librarian was made - Benefit was
claimed
on
the
basis
of
GO
dated
26.12.1998 - Permissibility :
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held : From a careful perusal of above referred
part of Government Order dated 26.12.1998, it
is evident that it only provides that Deputy
Librarian who were working under pay scale of
Rs. 2000-3200 will be provided pay scale of Rs.
2200-4000 and name of post will be changed as
Librarian. Said Government order does not
provide that all other service benefits would be
granted to such employees after change of
nomenclature. Said Government order is silent
on this issue - Therefore, claim of petitioner
that he ought to have been retired at the age of
62 years does not follow from Government
Order dated 26.12.1998. Accordingly, there is
no illegality when petitioner was retired at the
age of 60 years by giving Session benefit.
[Paras 10 and 11]
(B) Service law - Recovery - Post of
Deputy Librarian - Nomenclature of the
post of Deputy Librarian was changed to
Librarian and petitioner was also granted
pay scale accordingly - Higher pay scale
of
Librarian
paid
to
petitioner
was
directed
to
be
recovered
-
Validity
challenged :
Held : Though there is no absolute bar that
such recovery cannot be made but in the light
of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih
(2014) 8 SCC 883 and considering that it is not
a case of fraud on the part of petitioner and
probably since he has agitated the case that he
may be permitted to work upto the age of 62
years, a scrutiny was made of earlier order
passed in his favour and order of recovery was
passed - Respondents will not make any
recovery of payment made pursuant to higher
pay scale granted to petitioner as well as
consequential financial relief. [Para 15 and 16]
(E- 1)

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih
(2014) 8 SCC 883 - referred to.

List of Acts
Government Order dated 26.12.1998.

List of Keywords
Age of retirement; Date of birth; Change of
name of post; Higher pay scale; Recovery.

Case Arising From
Claim of 62 years as age of retirement as
provided to the post of Librarian.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Aishwarya Kumar
Singh, Manish, Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi,
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : Akhilesh Chandra
Mishra, C.S.C., Gagan Mehta, S.B. Singh,
Shashank Bhushan Pandey Chanchal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In the present case, petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Deputy
Librarian against a substantive post on
05.02.1991. The date of birth of petitioner
is
03.01.1958
and
as
such
since
undisputedly age of retirement of a Deputy
Librarian is 60 years, therefore, by giving
benefit of end of Session, he was supposed
to retire on 30.06.2018 and was not allowed
to work beyond the age of 60 years.

2. Petitioner has claimed on basis of
certain Circular and Government orders
that since nomenclature of the post of
Deputy Librarian was changed to Librarian
and he was granted pay scale accordingly
and further the post of Deputy Librarian
was supposed to be abolished and only one
post
of
Librarian
to
continue,
the
consequence would only be that petitioner
was not only be entitled for salary to the
post of Librarian but all consequential
benefits also, such as age of retirement etc.
The date of retirement of the post of
Librarian is admittedly 62 years.

3. In first petition, i.e., Writ-A No.
13487 of 2018, petitioner has challenged
orders dated 09.05.2018 and 10.05.2018
whereby his claim to work upto the age of
62 years was rejected with an observation
that petitioners date of birth is 03.01.1958
and he has completed 60 years on
11 All. Umesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
02.01.2018 though he was granted Session
benefit. Petitioner has approached this
Court that said orders be quashed and he
may be allowed to work upto the age of 62
years. No interim order was granted and
during pendency of first writ, petitioner has
crossed age of 62 years.

4. During pendency of first writ
petition, an order dated 24.06.2019 was
passed by Director of Higher Education,
whereby an order of granting higher pay
scale of Librarian was withdrawn and
consequential order for recovery was also
passed. Said order was challenged in
second writ petition, i.e., Writ-A No. 15283
of 2019 wherein an interim order dated
22.10.2019 was passed whereby recovery
was stayed.

5. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner, submitted that once
petitioner was given benefit of a Circular
dated 26.12.1998 whereby not only pay
scale as fixed by University Grants
Commission was granted but the name of
post was changed from Deputy Librarian to
Librarian. Said benefit was granted on
15.02.2001 and 10.07.2001, therefore, the
same cannot be withdrawn at the stage of
retirement, i.e., after 17 years.

6. The Court asked learned counsel for
petitioner to show any document that
petitioner was promoted on the post of
Librarian, however, he was not able to
show
any
such
document,
except
Government
Order
dated
26.12.1998,
which provides that name of post of Deputy
Librarian be changed as Librarian and its
benefit was granted to the petitioner.

7. Per contra, Sri N.K. Chaturvedi and
Sri
S.B.
Pandey
Pandey
Chanchal,
Advocates has supported the impugned
orders that petitioner was wrongly granted
benefit
of
Government
Order
dated
26.12.1998 and was wrongly given benefit
of higher pay scale which ought to have
been given only when petitioner was earlier
in pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 whereas
petitioner was earlier working in the pay
scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Therefore, higher
pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was wrongly
granted and accordingly an order of
recovery was passed. Petitioner was never
promoted on the post of Librarian.
Government Order dated 26.12.1998 does
not provide that after change of name of
post, the benefit of age of retirement would
also be granted.

8. I have considered the aforesaid
submissions and perused the material
available on record.

9. Case of petitioner is based on
Government Order dated 26.12.1998. For
reference relevant part thereof is mentioned
hereinafter:

"2. अिासकीय महाशवद्यालयोों में
वेतनमान रू0 2000-3200 में कायषरत एवों
पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष पद के शलए यू०जी०सी० द्वारा
शवशहत की गयी अहषता रखने वाले उपपुस्तकालयाध्यक्षोों द्वारा शवगत् काफी समय से
यह मााँग की जाती रही है शक पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष
पद की शवशहत अहषता रखने एवों पूवष में वेतनमान
समान होने के आधार पर उन्हें भी शवश्वशवद्यालय
अनुदान आयोग द्वारा सोंस्तुत वेतनमान रू०
2200-4000 शदया जाये। राज्य सरकार ने इस पर
सम्यक् शवचारोपरान्त वेतनमान रू0 2000-3200
के उप-पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष को पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष
का पदनाम देने और इस पदनाम के फलस्वरूप
यू०जी०सी० द्वारा सोंस्तुत रू0 2200-4000 का
वेतनमान शदये जाने का शनणषय शलया है। अतएवों
प्रश्नगत 29.02.96 के िासनादेि में आोंशिक
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सोंिोधन के तदन्तगषत शवशहत ितों व प्रशतबन्धोों
पर श्री राज्यपाल अिासकीय महाशवद्यालयोों में
रू0
2000-3200
के
वेतनमान
में
उपपुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष पद पर वतषमान में कायषरत /
पूणषकाशलक / शनयशमत रूप से शनयुक्त
कमषचाररयोों जो उसके (29.02.96 के िासनादेि
के) साथ सोंलग्न पररशिश्ट "क" में शनशदष्ट
यू०जी०सी० द्वारा शनधाषररत अहषता रखते है, को
भी रू० 2200-4000 का वेतनमान सहर्ष स्वीकृत
करने के आदेि प्रदान करते हैं।

3. मुझे यह भी कहने का शनदेि हुआ
है शक उपयुषक्तानुसार अिासकीय महाशवद्यालयोों
में उप-पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष पद पर वतषमान में
कायषरत
कमषचाररयोों
को
पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष
पदनाम, स्वीकृत हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उपपुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष पद स्वतः समाि हो जायेगें
और साथ ही पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष का एक से
अशधक पद हो जाने पर कालान्तर में सेवाशनवृशत्त
अथवा अन्य कारणोों से इनके ररक्त होने पर
अन्ततः पुस्तकालयाध्यक्ष के पद को िोड़कर
िेर् पद भी स्वतः समाि समझे जायेंगे।"

10. From a careful perusal of above
referred part of Government Order dated
26.12.1998, it is evident that it only
provides that Deputy Librarian who were
working under pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200
will be provided pay scale of Rs. 22004000 and name of post will be changed as
Librarian. Said Government order does not
provide that all other service benefits
would be granted to such employees after
change of nomenclature. Said Government
order is silent on this issue.

11. Determination of age of retirement
would only depend on basis of service rules
since it attached a financial liability on
Government.
Conspicuously
said
observation and determination is absolutely
missing
in
Government
Order
dated
26.12.1998.
There
is
no
subsequent
Government order on the issue, whether
age of retirement would be determined
from change of nomenclature of post, i.e.,
Deputy Librarian to Librarian. Therefore,
claim of petitioner that he ought to have
been retired at the age of 62 years does not
follow from Government Order dated
26.12.1998. Accordingly, there is no
illegality when petitioner was retired at the
age of 60 years by giving Session benefit.

12. Now the other issue is, whether
petitioner was wrongly granted pay scale of
Rs. 2200-4000 or not.

13. Petitioner was working in the pay
scale
of
Rs.
1400-2300,
however,
Government
Order
dated
26.12.1998
strictly provided that it was available only
to those Deputy Librarian who were
working in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200.
Petitioner
does
not
fulfill
the
said
condition. Therefore, strict interpretation of
said Government order is against the
petitioner. A document on record showing
that petitioner was in pay scale of Rs. 20003200 is being disputed by the respondents.

14. Even after making aforesaid
observations, the Court finds that petitioner
was granted benefit of higher pay scale in
the year 2001 and he has worked on same
pay scale for 17 years and also granted
other benefits on basis of said pay scale. He
was also granted UGC pay scale and
benefits
of
revised
pay
scale
also.
Therefore, after he crossed the age of 60
years, any order that determination of pay
scale made about 17 years ago, was bad in
law and consequential order of recovery,
would be against the interest of justice.

15. Though there is no absolute bar
that such recovery cannot be made but in
11 All. Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
the light of State of Punjab and others
Vs. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883 and
considering that it is not a case of fraud on
the part of petitioner and probably since he
has agitated the case that he may be
permitted to work upto the age of 62 years,
a scrutiny was made of earlier order passed
in his favour and order of recovery was
passed. The order of recovery has already
been stayed by this Court.

16. In view of above, while rejecting
the prayer of petitioner to work upto the
age of 62 years, both these writ petitions
are disposed of that respondents will not
make any recovery of payment made
pursuant to higher pay scale granted to
petitioner as well as consequential financial
relief and petitioners pension shall be
determined only on basis of his last pay
drawn. Impugned order of recovery and a
direction to determine pension as per
earlier pay scale paid to petitioner (i.e.,
before higher pay fixation), is interfered
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 799
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 15526 of 2025

Shanti Devi @ Sukh Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Vinod Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Usha Kiran

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of requiring PAN Card and Aadhar
Card to proof the correct name of the wife of
deceased employee for granting her family
pension, particularly when it was not required
during the life of deceased-employee, who filed
the application for correction of his wife's name
in service record.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post retiral benefits -
Family pension - Incorrect name of
petitioner (wife of deceased employee)
was entered in service record - Though
employee filed an application to correct
the name alongwith Form 'F', but no
action was taken - Effect - On behalf of
respondent, it was argued that no PAN
card and Aadhaar Card was provided to
substantiate
the
correct
name
-
Permissibility - Succession Certificate -
Relevance :
Held : Once in the year 2018 itself as per the
required provisions an application along with
Form 'F' (nomination for gratuity) was placed
mentioning petitioner's name as Shanti Devi and
nothing has been brought on record to show
that the petitioner's husband was put to notice
to submit other documents like PAN Card and
Aadhaar Card for verification of the aforesaid
fact that Shanti Devi and Sukh Devi are one and
the same person, the very submission and
contention being addressed on behalf of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 is unsustainable - For
the inaction or failure on the part of respondent
authority, an employee cannot be fastened with
any liability to which he has no authority - Such
functioning of responsible authorities alike in the
present case not only causes hardships and
difficulties to the dependents of deceased
employee who are in penury and pitiable
condition but also becomes cause of a number
of litigation which piles up cases before the
Courts. Authorities concerned should proceed in
such matters within due course of time in
accordance with law. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] (E-
1)

Case Law Cited