# Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1629
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11593 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ved-prakash-mittal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50232
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Service Law-The formula and procedure
for computation of pension as given in the
Government Orders
dated
18.07.2017
modifying
the
earlier
decision
for
Government
employees
who
retired
before 01.01.2006 shall be applicable to
the petitioners as well as the Concordance
Tables issued from time to time for
determination of their pension/ family
pension including the ones appended to
the Government Order dated 04.09.2017.
The Government Order dated 01.05.2018
also
shall
apply
to
the
petitionersRetrospective
operation
of
revised
pension with effect from 01.01.2016 and
arrears to be paid, nothing on record to
show that question of payment of arrears
with effect from 01.01.2016 to 24.02.2021
was
deliberated
upon
seriously-It
is
evident from the fact that information in
prepared
formats
continued
to
be
collected
by
the
Administrative
Department even after issuance of the
impugned office memo. It is therefore
directed that the Respondent No.1 shall
collect all necessary information and also
determine the availability of finances and
issue appropriate orders within a period of
three months from the date a copy of this
order is produced before it, taking into
account also the observations made by
this Court hereinabove-(Para 79)

Petition partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,850 of 98,255. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39850 for what follows._

5 All. Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1629
jurisdiction. In a matter like the present
case where order passed by the statutory
authority vested with power to act quasijudicially is challenged before the High
Court, the role of the Court is supervisory
and corrective. In exercise of such
jurisdiction the High Court is not expected
to interfere with the final order passed by
the Statutory Authority unless the order
suffers from manifest error and if it is
allowed to stand it would amount to
perpetuation of grave injustice. The Court
should bear in mind that it is not acting as
yet another appellate court in the matter.
We are constrained to observe that in the
present case the High Court has failed to
keep the salutary principles in mind while
deciding the case."

46. In this view of the matter, in our
considered opinion, no case for interference
with the impugned judgment passed by the
Appellate Authority is made out.

47. In the result, this writ petition
fails and is dismissed.

48. The interim order, already
granted, is hereby vacated.

49. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1629
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ A No. 11593 of 2021
with
other cases

Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Satyendra Singh, Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sriprakash Singh

Service Law-The formula and procedure
for computation of pension as given in the
Government Orders
dated
18.07.2017
modifying
the
earlier
decision
for
Government
employees
who
retired
before 01.01.2006 shall be applicable to
the petitioners as well as the Concordance
Tables issued from time to time for
determination of their pension/ family
pension including the ones appended to
the Government Order dated 04.09.2017.
The Government Order dated 01.05.2018
also
shall
apply
to
the
petitionersRetrospective
operation
of
revised
pension with effect from 01.01.2016 and
arrears to be paid, nothing on record to
show that question of payment of arrears
with effect from 01.01.2016 to 24.02.2021
was
deliberated
upon
seriously-It
is
evident from the fact that information in
prepared
formats
continued
to
be
collected
by
the
Administrative
Department even after issuance of the
impugned office memo. It is therefore
directed that the Respondent No.1 shall
collect all necessary information and also
determine the availability of finances and
issue appropriate orders within a period of
three months from the date a copy of this
order is produced before it, taking into
account also the observations made by
this Court hereinabove-(Para 79)

Petition partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Praveen Kumar Agarwal Vs St.of U.P. &
ors.(2011) ILR 1 Allahabad 21

2. (Shakuntala Singh Vs St.of UP & ors.) 2019
(11) ADJ 495

3. Subrata Sen Vs U.O.I.& ors.2021 (8) SCC 71
1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. D.S. Nakara Vs U.O.I.1983 (1) SCC 305

5. Indian ex-Services League Vs U.O.I.1991 (2)
SCC 104

6. Krishena Kumar Vs U.O.I.1990 (4) SCC 207

7. Subrata Sen another Vs U.O.I.& ors.2001(8)
SCC 71

8. All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers
Association Vs U.O.I.AIR 1992 Supreme Court
767

9. Indian Ex-Servicemen's Movement Vs U.O.I.&
ors., 2022 (7) SCC 323

10. B.J. Akkara Vs U.O.I.(2006) 11 SCC 709

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. All of the above seven Writ
Petitions have been filed by retired
members U.P. Development Authorities
Centralized Services or their dependent
family members. They were holding
various posts for example Chief Architect
and Town Planner, Chief Town Planners,
Chief Engineers, Executive Engineers and
Assistant
Engineers
in
different
Development Authorities and had retired
before 01.01.2016. Some of the writ
petitions which were filed in 2019 and
2020 were filed mainly with a prayer to
revise the pension of the petitioners in
accordance with the recommendation of the
Seventh Pay Commission and strictly in
accordance with the Government Order
dated 23.12.2016 read with Government
Orders dated 18.07.2017 and 04.09.2017
which were issued for State Government
employees. Some petitioners were also
praying for grant of 20% additional pension
to them as they had attained the age of
eighty years. Pleadings were complete
between the parties and matters were ripe
for final hearing but in the meantime the
State Government issued Office Memo
dated 24.02.2021, which made admissible
revised pension to the petitioners in
accordance
with
the
Seventh
Pay
Commission's recommendations but with
effect from the date of issuance of such
order i.e. prospectively. Such Office Memo
has been challenged in later Writ Petitions
of 2021 as it provides that the formula
given
in
Government
Order
dated
23.12.2016
will
be
followed
while
calculating revised pension/family pension
only notionally, and actual benefits of
revised pension shall be given with effect
from 24.02.2021 meaning thereby that the
arrears of more than five years have been
denied. The impugned Office Memo also
denies the benefit of modified formula and
method for calculation of pension and
family pension as provided in Government
Orders
dated
18.07.2017
read
with
Government
Order
dated
04.09.2017,
saying that they were meant only for retired
Government Servants and their dependents.

2. The facts that are common to all of
the
writ
petitions
are
that
after
recommendations of the Seventh Central
Pay Commission, the State Government
constituted the Pay Committee 2016, to
implement the Recommendations of the
Seventh Central Pay Commission in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. The Pay Committee
2016 presented its recommendations/report
before the State Government with regard to
the implementation of the Seventh Pay
Commission upon different classes and
categories of employees/retirees of various
departments including the Housing and
Urban Planning Department and Local
Bodies, statutory institutions, public sector
enterprises and autonomous bodies like
Development
Authorities.
The
State
Cabinet accepted the recommendations of
the Pay Committee 2016 with regard to
5 All. Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1631
revised pay, Dearness Allowance/Relief as
well as pension/family pension and other
post retirement benefits for Urban Local
Bodies, Zila Panchayats, Jal Sansthan and
Development Authorities. Consequently, a
Government Resolution (Sankalp) dated
16.12.2016
was
issued
which
was
published in the Gazette. Clause 1 of such
Resolution
provided
that
the
recommendations of the Pay Committee
with regard to the revision of salaries of
employees of Development Authorities in
revised Pay Matrix (provided by the
Seventh Pay Commission) were accepted.
Clause 5 of the said Resolution provided
that pension of retirees of Development
Authorities who had earlier been getting
same pension as Government servants shall
be revised in an identical manner to State
Government pensioners. It further provided
that the financial implications/burden in
adopting the recommendations of the
Seventh Pay Commission for Local Bodies,
Zila Panchayats, Development Authorities
etc., would be borne by such institutions.
No transfer of funds other than funds which
are already being given by the State
Government to such authorities, would be
made available for additional financial
burden cast by such adoption. With
regard to Development Authorities the
recommendations would be admissible
only on the condition that financial
burden caused by such acceptance would
not be borne by the State Government.
The responsibility to deposit in time the
installments regarding loans extended by
the financial institutions giving credit to
such Development Authorities would be
discharged regularly and the increase in
establishment cost due to grant of
benefits admissible under the Seventh
Central
Pay
Commission's
recommendations shall be borne by such
Development Authorities.

3. The State Government issued
Government Order No.39 dated 23.12.2016
for Government employees who retired
before 01.01.2016, providing therein that
pension and family pension of such persons
who retired or died prior to 01.01.2016
shall be as per the Report of the Pay
Committee
2008
i.e.
the
Committee
constituted for implementation of the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission, and will be revised by
multiplying
factor
of
2.57
with
pension/family pension which they were
getting prior to 2016. The said Government
Order also provided that pensioners who
attained the age of 80 years shall be paid
20%
additional
pension.
Arrears
on
revision of pension shall also be paid with
effect from 01.01.2016.

4. A similar Government Order No.38
dated
23.12.2016
was
issued
for
Government Employees who retired after
01.01.2016. It also provided that 50% of
the last drawn basic salary would be given
as pension. The ceiling limit of maximum
amount of Gratuity was raised to 20 lakhs
from 10 lakhs as provided under the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission.

5. Thereafter, the State Government in
order to maintain homogeneity between
Pre-2016
and
post-2016
retired
Government employees, issued another
Government
Order
dated
18.07.2017
modifying the formula/ method for revision
of
pension/family
pension
for
such
Government employees providing therein
that apart from the method of multiplying
the existing pension by 2.57 points as
provided in the Government Order No. 39
dated 23.12.2016, the calculation for
revision of pension/family pension would
also be done by notional pay fixation,
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under each intervening Pay Commission's
recommendations, based on the formula for
revision of pay, and the amount which is
higher shall be the revised pension/family
pension. Clause 11 of the said Government
Order provided for payment of arrears as a
result of such upward revision with effect
from 01.01.2016. The State Government
thereafter issued an order on 04.09.2017
providing
calculation
method
and
Concordance
Tables
for
revised
pension/family pension for its employees in
accordance
with
the
method/principle
provided in the Government Order dated
18.07.2017.

6. However, the formula given in such
Government Orders were not applied for
calculating Pension/revised pension of
members of the Centralized Services of
Development Authorities. The Government
made it clear that separate orders shall be
issued by the Department of Housing and
Urban Planning. After five years of such
implementation of the Seventh Central Pay
Commission's
recommendations
with
respect
to
salary
and
pension
of
Government employees, the impugned
Office
Memo
has
been
issued
on
24.02.2021.
The
said
Office
Memo
provided that the formula set out in
Government Order dated 23.12.2016 would
be followed while calculating revised
pension/revised family pension, but actual
benefits of such revision would be given
only from the date of issuance of the Office
Memo that is with effect from 24.02.2021,
denying the arrears of more than five years.
The said Office Memo also denied the
benefits of modified formula and method
for calculating pension as provided in the
Government Orders dated 18.07.2017 read
with Government Order dated 04.09.2017
as
applicable
to
State
Government
employees.

7.
On
the
other
hand,
the
recommendations of the Seventh Pay
Commission with regard to revision of
salaries and other allowances except
Dearness Allowance was duly implemented
with
effect
from
01.01.2016
in
Development Authorities by a Government
Order dated 04.01.2017, and the employees
of Development Authorities who retired
after the revision of salary with effect from
01.01.2016 by the Government Order dated
04.01.2017 are getting pension at the rates
prescribed by the Government Order dated
04.09.2017 (that is 50% of the basic salary
at the time of retirement). One exemplar of
Pension Payment Order with regard to one
of such employees, Ratan Kumar Nigam,
who retired on 31.08.2017 from the post of
Assistant
Engineer
from
Prayagraj
Development Authority with last drawn
basic salary of Rs.1,02,500/- (revised in the
Seventh
Pay
Commission
as
per
Government Order dated 04.01.2017) being
granted Rs.51,250/- i.e. 50% of his last
drawn basic salary, has been filed as an
Annexure 12 to the Writ Petition No. 11593
of 2025.

8. It has been argued by Sri Satyendra
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
that the Development Authorities in the
State of U.P. have been created under the
provisions of the UP Urban Planning and
Development
Act
1973
(hereinafter
referred to as the ''Act of 1973'). After
creation of Development Authorities, the
State Government had issued Government
Orders dated 17.03.1983 and 29.09.1983
providing
therein
that
until
model
retirement benefit Rules are framed by the
State Government under Section 56(2)of
the Act of 1973, the employees of
Development Authorities would be entitled
for pension/family pension in accordance
with Uttar Pradesh Palika Centralized
5 All. Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1633
Services Retirement Benefit Rules 1981
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Palika Rules
of 1981'). The Palika Rules of 1981
provided pension and family pension at par
with State Government employees.

9. Subsequently, the State Government
notified the U.P. Development Authority
Centralized
Services
Rules
1985
(hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules
of 1985) and instead of framing retirement
benefit Rules or Regulations for such
Centralized Services, the State Government
issued an order on 05.04.1999 providing
therein that since no decision had yet been
taken for payment of pension to employees
of Centralized Services, they are not
entitled for payment of pension/family
pension and such pension was consequently
stopped.

10. The Government Order dated
05.04.1999 was challenged in several writ
petitions before this Court both at Lucknow
and Allahabad and this Court in Writ
petition No. 556 (S/B) 2009 Praveen
Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and
others, decided on 20.11.2010 reported in
(2011) ILR 1 Allahabad 21; allowed such
writ petitions and quashed the Government
Order dated 05.04.1999 and consequential
Government Order dated 09.11.2004 by
which
pension/
Family
pension
was
stopped with consequential benefits. This
Court recorded a finding that the two
Government Orders dated 05.04.1999 and
09.11.2004
had
been
issued
in
contravention of statutory provisions as
contained in Section 24 of the Act of 1973
which
provided
that
a
Development
Authority shall constitute for the benefit of
its officers and other employees a Pension
or Provident Fund. Rule 34(2) provides that
all employees of Development Authorities
retired in accordance with the said Rules
would be entitled to retiring pension
and/other retirement benefits. Rule 37(2)
provided that in regard to matters not
covered by the Rules or by special orders,
the members of service shall be governed
by the Rules, regulations and orders
applicable generally to U.P. Government
Servants serving in connection with the
affairs of the State. The Court observed that
the action of the State Government in
denying pension only because pension
regulations had not been framed by it, was
a completely arbitrary decision and liable
to be quashed. The Court issued a
mandamus directing the respondents to
ensure
payment
of
regular
pension
including arrears to the writ petitioners and
other similarly situated employees, in
accordance with the Rules applicable to the
State Government employees.

11. In pursuance to the directions
issued by this Court, the State Government
after nearly four decades of creation of
Development
Authorities,
ultimately
notified the U.P. Development Authorities
Centralized Services Retirement Benefit
Rules 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the
''Retirement Benefit Rules of 2011'). The
said Rules provided for pension and other
retirement
benefits
to
members
of
Centralized
Services
of
Development
Authorities, who were appointed before
01.04.2005. Later, the cut-off date was
modified by an order dated 22.12.2011
providing that such pension and retirement
benefits would also be available to
employees who retired prior to the
commencement of the Rules on 11.11.2011.

12. Part VI of the Retirement Benefit
Rules 2011 provides for establishment of
U.P. Development Authorities Centralized
Services Pension Fund, a consolidated and
common pension fund under the control of
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
Finance
Controller,
Lucknow
Development Authority, and also provides
the
procedure
for
disbursement
of
pension/family pension by the ViceChairman
of
Development
Authority
concerned subject to approval of the
Finance Controller, LDA.

13. The pension of all such petitioners
who had retired prior to 01.01.2006 was
revised as per the Sixth Pay Commission's
recommendations
with
effect
from
01.01.2006 on the basis of Government
Order No.1515 dated 08.12.2008 meant for
State Government employees, in pursuance
of observations made by the Division
Bench in the case of Praveen Kumar
Agarwal and others (supra) and the State
Government did not issue any separate
Government Orders from the Department
of Housing and Urban Planning for
revision
of
pension
of
retirees
of
Centralized Services as per the Sixth Pay
Commission''s
recommendations,
other
than
the
Government
Order
dated
08.12.2008 issued for State Government
employees.
Even
while
issuing
the
Government Resolution (Sankalp) dated
16.12.2016,
it
was
provided
that
Pension/family pension of employees of
Development Authorities who were getting
same
benefits
as
State
Government
pensioners shall be revised identically with
that of State Government employees.
Thereafter, Government Orders Nos. 38
and 39 dated 23.12.2016 were issued for
State Government employees providing
therein arrears of revised pension/family
pension to be paid with effect from
01.01.2016. Such Government Orders were
followed by two others dated 18.07.2017
and 04.09.2017, providing for revised
pension/family pension after taking into
account notional pay fixation for each pay
revision, based on the formula as provided
"Concordance Tables" enclosed along with
the said Office Memorandum. Such upward
revision in pension and family pension was
to be determined by the Head of the
Department/Head
of
Office,
without
requirement of any application by the
pensioners/family pensioners. Clause 5 of
the Government Order dated 04.09.2017
provides payment of arrears of revised
pension/family pension with effect from
01.01.2016
to
State
Government
employees. Another Government Order has
also been issued on 01.05.2018 clarifying
that pension of pre-2016 retirees shall in no
case be less than 50% of their notional pay
in the Pay Matrix as determined by the
Seventh Pay Commission, even if the
retiree had rendered less than qualifying
service required for full pension.

14. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that Rule 4 of
the Retirement Benefit Rules 2011 provides
for calculation of pension of retirees of
Development Authorities on the same
formula and in accordance with the same
procedure
as
is
applicable
to
State
Government employees. Similar provision
has been made with regard to Gratuity
under Rule 5. Rule 7 of the said Rules of
2011 provide that family pension to family
members of deceased employees shall be
regulated by relevant Rules applicable to
Government servants serving in connection
with the affairs of the State. As such
members
of
Centralized
Services
of
Development Authorities are entitled to
pension, family pension and Gratuity at par
with State Government employees and for
the purpose of calculation/revision of such
benefits the same procedure and formula
shall be used, i.e. the same Concordance
Tables shall be used as are applicable to
State Government employees from time to
time.
5 All. Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1635

15. It has also been argued on the basis
of judgement rendered by this Court in Writ
A No.54211 of 2016 (Shakuntala Singh
versus State of UP and others) reported in
2019 (11) ADJ 495; that the Retirement
Benefit Rules of 2011, by reference,
adopted the same formula and procedure
pertaining to pension/family pension as
applicable to employees of the State
Government and, therefore, subsequent
Government Orders pertaining to post
retirement
benefits
in
respect
of
Government servants become automatically
applicable and are enforceable upon the
employees of Development Authorities by
operation of law, from the date of their
issuance. The Court had also observed that
Finance Controller, LDA, who was incharge of the Consolidated Pension Fund,
had admitted that the requisite amount was
available in such Pension Fund constituted
under Rule 16 of the Retirement Pension
Benefit
Rules
2011,
therefore,
Development
Authorities
could
immediately, without any approval from the
State
Government,
implement
the
Government
Orders
revising
pension/family pension of their employees
pursuant to implementation of the Seventh
Pay Commission Recommendations. The
Court,
therefore,
observed
that
the
Government Order dated 08.12.2008 and
subsequent clarification the Government
Orders and Concordance Tables enclosed
therewith, dealing with computation and
revision of pension/family pension and
other
benefits
on
adoption
of
the
recommendations
of
the
Sixth
Pay
Commission
recommendations
would
apply in totality and without modification
upon employees of the Centralized Services
of such Development Authorities.

16. It has been argued that after the
observations made by this Court in
Shakuntala Singh (supra), the Government
Orders dated 23.12.2016, 18.07.2017 and
04.09.2017
and
01.05.2018,
become
applicable upon the petitioners in their
totality from the date of their issuance
including for payment of arrears with effect
from 01.01.2016 consequent to such
Revision, and therefore the date of
applicability as mentioned in the impugned
Office Memo dated 24.02.2021 is liable to
be set aside.

17. It has been argued for the
petitioners that apart from non-payment of
arrears of revised pension/family pension
with effect from 01.01.2016 i.e. arrears for
more than five years, the impugned Office
Memorandum dated 24.02.2021 is causing
huge monetary loss to the petitioners every
month by not implementing the formula
provided in the Government Orders dated
18.07.2017
and
04.09.2017
and
01.05.2018. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has drawn attention of this
Court to paragraph-54 of Writ Petition
No.11593 of 2021, wherein an illustration
of monthly loss being caused to petitioner
no.1- Ved Prakash Mittal has been given in
a Tabular form. Ved Prakash Mittal retired
on 31.10.2003 and last drawn salary was
Rs.20,000/-. Basic pension as per the Fifth
Pay Commission''s recommendations was
calculated at Rs.7273/-. Basic pension as
per
the
Sixth
Pay
Commission's
recommendations
was
calculated
at
Rs.17,855/-. When the Government Order
dated 26.12.2016 alone is applied and the
existing basic pension is multiplied by
2.57, it comes to Rs.45,887/-. However, if
basic pension is revised as per Government
Order
dated
18.07.2017
read
with
Government Order dated 04.09.2017, as
per the Concordance Tables, the pension
payable comes to around Rs.69,550/-. The
difference per month is of Rs.23,663/-. In
1636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paragraph-55 of the writ petition, it has
further been submitted that the State
Government revises Dearness Relief every
six months. Since the Dearness Relief at
the time of filing of the writ petition was
28% on the amount of basic pension, the
loss of the petitioner will keep increasing as
and when the rate of dearness relief is
enhanced by the State Government.

18. It has been argued that the
recommendations of the Seventh Pay
Commission with regard to salaries has
been duly implemented for employees of
Centralized
Services
of
Development
Authorities with effect from 01.01.2016 by
Government
Order
dated
04.01.2017.
Therefore, employees who retired after
revision of salary with effect from
01.01.2016, are getting pension at the rates
prescribed by Government Order dated
04.09.2017, that is, 50% of the Basic Salary
at the time of retirement. One employee
Ratan Kumar Nigam retired on 31.08.2017
and he is getting pension at 50% of the last
drawn basic salary.

19. It has been argued that two
separate classes have been created within
one homogeneous class of employees
belonging to Centralized Services of
Development Authorities by giving benefits
of the Seventh Pay Commission to those
who retired after 01.01.2016 and refusing it
to those who retired prior to it. Not only
this, the giving of benefit of revised
pension, without arrears and only with
effect from the date of issuance of Office
Memorandum dated 24.02.2021 amounts to
hostile
discrimination
because
other
employees of Local Bodies such as Zila
Panchayats have been given the benefit of
the Resolution (Sankalp) dated 16.12.2016
and the Department of Panchayati Raj has
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
16.02.2018 implementing the aforesaid
Government Orders dated 23.12.2016,
18.07.2017 and 04.09.2017, in their totality
without any modification. On the other
hand, the Department of Housing and
Urban Planning has issued the impugned
Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2021
which not only denies the benefit of
enhanced pension as provided by the
aforesaid three Government Orders, but
also disallows the payment of arrears of
revised
pension
with
effect
from
01.01.2016.

20. It has been argued for the
petitioners that since the respondents have
kept the revision of pension/family pension
of the petitioners pending for more than
five years from the commencement of the
Seventh
Pay
Commission's
recommendations ignoring the mandatory
provisions of the Statutory Rules 2011 and
the observations made by this Court in the
case of Praveen Kumar Agarwal and
Shakuntala Singh (supra), the petitioners
are entitled for interest at the rate of 12%
per annum on the delayed settlement of the
revised pension/family pension with effect
from the date it became payable i.e., with
effect from 01.01.2016.

21. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Standing
Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State
respondents has argued that the retirement
benefits of the petitioners are governed by
the Retirement Benefit Rules 2011. The
provisions of Rule 4, related to pension and
Rule 5 related to death-cum-retirement
Gratuity, and Rule 7 related to family
pension provide the same to be calculated
according to the procedure and formula
applicable to employees of the State
Government. However, Rule 15 of the said
5 All. Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1637
Rules also provides that the decision of the
State Government in case of dispute or
difficulty arising regarding interpretation of
any provisions of the Rules would be final
and conclusive and that matters not covered
by the Rules shall be governed by such
orders as the State Government may deem
proper to issue.

22. It has further been argued for the
Respondents that no doubt the pension of
employees of Development Authorities is
being
paid
from
the
Fund
of
the
Development Authority itself and the State
Government is not bearing the burden of
payment to such employees, it is within the
jurisdiction of the State Government to
decide the date of implementation of the
recommendations of the Seventh Pay
Commission
and
that
of
the
Pay
Committee, 2016.

23. It has been argued for the
Respondents
that
the
employees
of
Development
Authorities
are
not
Government servants. A Development
Authority is a body Corporate and an
autonomous
institution.
Hence,
the
Government Orders issued with respect to
Government servants are not automatically
applicable
upon
employees
of
Development Authorities, and they are
made applicable taking into account the
financial conditions of the Development
Authority concerned. The Government
Order dated 23.12.2016 was issued by the
Finance Department of Government of U.P.
specifically providing that it will not be
applicable upon employees of Local Bodies
and
Public
Sector
Undertakings
and
Development
Authorities
and
other
autonomous
institutions.
Government
Orders dated 18.07.2017 and 04.09.2017
also clearly provided that they will not be
applicable
on
employees
of
various
institutions including the High Court,
Statutory Corporations, Basic Schools,
aided Educational Institutions, Autonomous
Bodies including Development Authorities
which depend upon their own financial
resources. For Development Authorities,
separate Government Orders were issued
by the Administrative Department applying
the recommendations of the Pay Committee
and, therefore, the monetary benefits given
in such orders cannot be the same as
applicable to State Government servants.
The Administrative Department makes
applicable the Government Orders taking
into account the financial condition of the
Authorities to bear the financial burden.
Though
some
of
the
Development
Authorities indicated their consent for
extending the benefit of Seventh Pay
Commission recommendations to their
employees with effect of the date they
became applicable to State Government
servants, the State Government after
considering the financial conditions of all
Development
Authorities
and
other
ancillary factors which affect the financial
resources of such Development Authorities,
issued the Office Memorandum dated
24.02.2021 in exercise of its powers under
the Retirement Benefit Rules of 2011.

24. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi has also
referred to the Counter Affidavit filed by
the State Respondents which also reiterated
that
the
Government
employees
are
different from employees of Development
Authorities and, therefore, Government
Orders issued with respect to State
Government Servants are not applicable
automatically
upon
employees
of
autonomous institutions like Development
Authorities.
The
monetary
benefits
available to State Government employees
cannot be automatically made available to
employees of Development Authorities as
1638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their financial conditions are different.
Though the State Government in principle
adopted the recommendations of the Pay
Committee 2016 with regard to employees
of urban Local Bodies, Zila Panchayats, Jal
Sansthan and Development Authorities by
its Resolution dated 16.12.2016 it was on
the condition that the benefit of such
recommendations would be made available
to such employees only if the financial
burden does not fall upon the State
Government. The State Government would
not transfer any funds. Moreover, the
Development Authorities would have to
discharge their responsibilities towards
loans/advances made to them by different
financial credit institutions. The additional
establishment costs would have to be borne
by such Development Authorities out of
their own funds. The Government Order
Nos. 38 and 39 dated 23 .12. 2016 issued
by the Finance Department are with regard
to pension, Gratuity and other payments
admissible to Government employees and
specifically provide that they will not be
applicable upon employees of Local Bodies
and
Public
Sector
Undertakings
and
autonomous institutions. The Government
Orders dated 18.07.2017 and 04.09.2017
provide for calculation of the amount of
pension, Gratuity and family pension of
employees of Development Authorities in
accordance with the Formula and procedure
prescribed
for
State
Government
employees but they do not provide for
payment of the same amount as per to State
Government employees.

25. The learned counsel for the
respondent argued that the petitioners want
benefit of Government Orders issued for
government
employees.
All
such
Government Orders on which reliance has
been placed by the petitioners and the
benefit of which the petitioners want this
Court to extend to them, clearly say that
they shall not be applicable to employees of
autonomous
institutions,
local
bodies,
statutory
corporations
et
cetera. The
relevant exclusionary clauses have not been
challenged by the petitioners.

26. It has also been argued for the
Respondents that the date of applicability
of Pay Commissions recommendations
with
respect
to
pension
and
other
retirement benefits has not been given in
Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the Retirement Benefit
Rules. Only the formula and procedure to
be adopted for determination of such
pension and retirement benefits was to be
the same as that of State Government
employees. The Administrative department
therefore was required to issue separate
orders deciding the date of applicability of
Pay Committee's recommendations. In this
case, the respondent no.1 has decided that
the Pay Committee's recommendations will
be applicable to pensioners of Development
Authorities notionally with effect from
01.01.2016 and actual benefits would
accrue with effect from the date of issuance
of the Government Order in this regard,
that is, with effect from 24.02.2021. The
Government has taken a conscious decision
to deny arrears looking into the financial
condition of the Development Authorities.
The record produced before this Court
would show that not all of the Development
Authorities are in profit. Most of them are
running in losses. The financial capacity to
give pensionary benefits with retrospective
effect was doubtful and therefore the
Government decided on giving benefits of
the
Seventh
Pay
Commission's
recommendations only prospectively. There
is
no
doubt
regarding
complete
administrative
control
of
the
State
Government over the administration of
Development Authorities. Rule 37 of the
5 All. Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1639
Rules of 2011 refers to the final authority to
decide a dispute or settle a doubt being
with the State Government.

27. The learned counsel for the State
Respondents has placed reliance upon
reports/charts with regard to financial
conditions and resources of Development
Authorities filed as Annexure CA-6 to the
Counter Affidavit filed in Writ Petition
No.11593 of 2021. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi has
read out CA-6 which is a letter dated
17.06.2021 sent by the Director Awas
Bandhu, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to the
Under Secretary of Housing and Urban
Planning Department with reference to the
Government's letter dated 01.03.2021. It
refers to information given in Form Nos. 7
to 10 and Form Nos. 11 to 13, being
examined
and
comments
being
sent
through letter dated 03.03.2021 written by
him. It refers to a meeting held by the
Principal Secretary Housing and Urban
Planning on 11.06.2021 where a direction
was issued for examination of information
given in prescribed Form nos. 1 to 6 by the
Awas Bandhu, and for a report to be
submitted thereafter to the Government.
Consequently, the report desired by the
Principal Secretary in his meeting dated
11.06.2021
was
being
enclosed
for
consideration of the Government. The
enclosure to the letter is in the form of a
tabular
chart
containing
information
regarding income and expenditure of 33
Development Authorities and U.P. Awas
Vikas Parishad for the year 2018-19, 201920 and 2020-21. It sums up such
information by saying that for Raebareli,
Aligarh,
Bareilly,
Muzaffarnagar,
Gorakhpur, Rampur, Agra, Chitrakoot,
Ghaziabad,
Saharanpur
and
Prayagraj
Development Authorities, the expenditure
has been more than the income for the past
three years. It has been argued that out of
33 Development Authorities, at least 11
Development Authorities were spending
more than they earned. However, on a
consideration of the income of all the
Development Authorities for the past two
years, it has been found that such income
has increased by more than 8% for the
financial year 202-21. The Director, Awas
Bandhu, further says that despite the
COVID-19 pandemic prevailing in the
nation, the Development Authorities have
made commendable efforts and their
income has increased by more than 8%
from the past financial year.

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi has tried to
distinguish the judgement rendered in the
case of Shakuntala Singh (supra) by saying
that the prayer of the writ petition was for
quashing of Clause 6 of the Government
Order dated 05.07.2016 in so far as it
denied payment of arrears of revised
pension with effect from 01.01.2006 to
employees of Centralize Services. The
petitioner had further prayed for providing
the benefit of the said Government Order
dated 05.07.2016 and also the Government
Order dated 21.01.2016 which were with
regard to the grant of benefit of the Sixth
Pay Commission's recommendations. The
Court had specifically considered the
argument that the matter relating to
providing the benefits of the Seventh Pay
Commission was pending consideration of
the State Government. The calculation of
the pension of the husband of Smt.
Shakuntala Singh had been made by the
Development Authority not in accordance
with the formula applicable to State
Government employees and, therefore, the
Court had directed calculation of pension
and
consequently
family
pension
in
accordance
with
the
formula
for
computation applicable to Government
employees
by
observing
that
the
1640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Administrative Department had not issued
any orders independently providing for a
different
method
of
calculation
of
pension/family pension. The Government
Order dated 18.07.2017 by which the
earlier Government Order dated 23.12.2016
was modified and clarified that it would not
be applicable to autonomous institutions
was not considered by the Court in the case
of Shakuntala Singh. Therefore, it has been
argued that the reliance placed upon the
judgement rendered in Shakuntala Singh by
the petitioners is misconceived and liable to
be rejected.

28. Sri Satyendra Singh and counsel
for the petitioners in Rejoinder has
submitted that the Office Memorandum
dated 24.02.2021 was issued without
application of mind to the financial
conditions of Development Authorities
whose pensioners were proposed to be
given revised rates of pension as per the
recommendations of the Pay Committee
2016. The counsel for the petitioners has
referred to the paragraph No. 28 of the
Counter Affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.
11593 of 2021 and Counter Affidavits filed
in earlier writ petition of Narain Ji Gopal in
December, 2021. It has been argued that no
material as referred to in paragraph 28 and
Annexure CA-6 of the counter affidavit
filed in Ved Prakash Mittal, has been
referred to at all in the Counter Affidavits
filed in earlier writ petition. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has taken this
Court through CA-6 filed in Writ Petition
No. 11593 of 2021 to show that it was only
in pursuance of a letter issued on
01.03.2021 and correspondence undertaken
after the meeting held on 11.06.2021 that
the letter dated 17.06.2021 was written by
the Director U.P. Awas Bandhu. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out from point nos. 2 and 3 of the
enclosure to the said letter that the last
three years average of Balance Sheet of
various Development Authorities was taken
into account and only 11 such Development
Authorities had shown a deficit in the
Balance
Sheets
and
even
with
the
difficulties faced during the COVID-19
pandemic the sum total of the Balance
Sheets of all the Developments Authorities
for the past two years showed profit of
more than 8% over and above their earlier
income.