# Vishwanath Ram v. G.M., Obra Thermal Power Station and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 417
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-02-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2007
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishwanath-ram-v-g-m-obra-thermal-power-station-and-others-40929
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Reduction
of Salary-petitioner was getting salary of
Rs.9700 at time of retirement-monthly
pension fixed Rs.4679/- deduction of
Rs.1871/-
per
month-held-illegalpetitioner not found instrumental in
wrong fixation-Govt. may take action
against the erring officer but after
retirement
petitioner
can
not
be
penalized.

Held: Para 10

There was nothing to show that he was
instrumental in grant of such benefits. If
any state officials have wrongly fixed the
salary it is upon the State to fix
responsibility upon such erring person
but petitioner cannot be penalized for
wrong act of others.
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) UPLBEC-127 relied on.

## Text

2 All] Vishwanath Ram V. G.M., Obra Thermal Power Station and others
417
rightly
took
decision
permitting
to
constitute separate judicial cadre of
judicial officers working in the revenue
side under the supervision of the High
Court. Further it is clear that by the
aforesaid G.O the judicial officers who
became member of a separate judicial
service were permitted to decide revenue
cases with the permission of the High
Court
on
deputation.
Since
the
government order dated 29.9.1967 issued
by the State specifically mentions that
revenue cases could-be-disposed of even
after creation of separate judicial service
of judicial offices on deputation with the
permission of the High Court, it is
clarified that the State can create revenue
judicial service by direct recruitment or
by way of getting members of the Civil
Services (Judicial Branch) appointed on
deputation till regular separate judicial
revenue cadre is created as is clear from
the Government order dated 29.9.1967.
Such a deputation can be granted with the
permission of the High Court to dispose
of revenue cases as was done under the
Government order dated 29th Sept 1967.

8. In view of the above discussion,
the second ground too has no force and
falls to the ground.

9.

No
other
point
of
any
consequence was raised capable of
interference with the main judgment of
the Court.

10. In the result, the review
application is rejected being bereft of any
merit.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2007

Vishwanath Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager Obra Thermal Station,
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utapadan Nigam Ltd.,
District Sonbhadra & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.S. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Mehrotra

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Reduction
of Salary-petitioner was getting salary of
Rs.9700 at time of retirement-monthly
pension fixed Rs.4679/- deduction of
Rs.1871/-
per
month-held-illegalpetitioner not found instrumental in
wrong fixation-Govt. may take action
against the erring officer but after
retirement
petitioner
can
not
be
penalized.

Held: Para 10

There was nothing to show that he was
instrumental in grant of such benefits. If
any state officials have wrongly fixed the
salary it is upon the State to fix
responsibility upon such erring person
but petitioner cannot be penalized for
wrong act of others.
Case law discussed:
2004 (1) UPLBEC-127 relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. List has been revised. None has
appeared for the respondents. Heard Sri
K.S. Ojha, counsel for the petitioner.
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
2. This writ petition has been filed
for issuance of a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned
order
dated
7.3.2006
in
pursuance of the order dated 12.10.2004
passed by respondent no.4. It has further
been prayed that a writ of mandamus be
issued commanding the respondents to act
in accordance with law and reaffirm prior
pay scale of Rs.9700/- per month and pay
the
entire
post
retiral
benefits
in
pursuance of the order dated 19.11.1997
with 15% interest to the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of
Operator II in the year 1968 e in Obra
Thermal Power Plant Obra, District
Sonbhadra
and
was
regularized
as
permanent employee in fuel Handling
Division 1 Obra Thermal ''A' Power
Station Obra, Sonbhadra on 15.5.1971.
Thereafter he was promoted on the post of
Operator I grade in the year 1981. His pay
scale
was
reduced and refixed as
Rs.2630/-. The petitioner retired from
service on 29.2.2004 and at the time of
retirement he was getting salary of
Rs.9700/- per month.

4. It is alleged by the petitioner that
the respondent-authorities have wrongly
and illegally reduced and refixed the
salary of the petitioner as Rs.9500/- in
place of Rs.9700/- per month and
accordingly computed all post retiral
benefits on the basis of fixation of
Rs.9500/-. The respondents have passed
the pension order vide order dated
12.10.2004 by fixing pension as Rs.4679/-
but they have started deducting Rs.1871/-
from the monthly pension of the petitioner
without paying the gratuity and Rashi
Karan amount.

5. It is further alleged by the
petitioner that he had made representation
along with reminders on 11.3.2005,
20.5.2005 and 27.7.2005in this regard to
the authorities concerned but to no avail.
Then petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 58881 of 2005.

6. It is stated that this Court vide
order
dated
23.1.2006
directed
the
respondents to decide the aforesaid
representation within a time bound frame
and further directed the respondents to
pay the admitted post retiral dues of the
petitioner.

7. It is further stated that in
pursuance of the order of this Court dated
23.1.2006 respondent no.4 rejected the
representation of the petitioner without
paying the admitted gratuity and Rashi
Karan amount, hence this writ petition.

8. The counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondents authorities
had already fixed the pay of Rs.9700/- of
the petitioner at the time of his retirement
but
subsequently
they
refixed
and
modified the pay scale of the petitioner as
Rs.9500/- interalia that due to mistake of
Accounts
department
increment
was
wrongly granted to the petitioner on
1.4.1984.

9. It is urged that the petitioner had
been rightly granted increment by the
Accounts department on 1.4.84 as such
the impugned order dated 7.3.2006 is
arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable
to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled
to get the prior pay scale of Rs.9700/-.

10. The petitioner is not at fault of
alleged wrong fixation of his salary. In
State of U.P. and others Vs. State
2 All] Ashok Kumar Buxi and another V. State of U.P. and another
419
Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Luckow
and another, (2004) 1 UPLBEC-127 it
has been held that pensionary benefits of
an employee can not be withheld after his
retirement on the ground that promotional
pay scale and selection grade was
wrongly granted. There was nothing to
show that he was instrumental in grant of
such benefits. If any state officials have
wrongly fixed the salary it is upon the
State to fix responsibility upon such
erring person but petitioner cannot be
penalized for wrong act of others. In the
aforesaid case of State of U.P. and
others (supra) the High Court therefore,
found that Tribunal was justified in
directing payment of pensionary benefits.
Refusing to interfere with Tribunal's
direction, High Court held that it was not
fit case for exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

11. For the reason that neither the
petitioner is at fault nor was instrumental
in fixation of his alleged wrong salary and
in view of the decision in the case of
State of U.P. and others Vs. State
Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Luckow
and another (2004) 1UPLBEC-127
(supra) and for the reasons stated above,
the
writ
petition
is
allowed.
The
impugned order is quashed. No order as to
costs.

Petition allowed.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 8955 of
2002

Ashok Kumar Buxi and another

 ...Applicants-Accused
Versus
State of U.P. and another

 ...Complainant-Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Anil Srivastava
Sri Amit Srivastava
Sri Narendra Kumar Sharma
A.G.A.

Indian Penal Code-Section 406-Criminal
breach
of
Trust-complaint
by
wife
against her husband, family member of
her
in-laws
including
11
membersparticular of Stridhan not specified- only
a general and vague statement that all
the accused have usurped the propertyheld-continuation of proceeding-be an
abuse of process of court-proceeding
quashed.

Held: Para 9

The requirement of Section 406 Indian
Penal
Code
being
attracted
as
enumerated
in
the
aforesaid
case,
cannot be said to be available in the
present case, because, there is no clear
mention of the entrustment of items to
any particular accused and there is only
a general and vague statement that all
the accused have usurped the property.
Even
on
merits,
the
case
of
the
complainant- wife is unsuccessful.
Case law relied on:
1991 Cr.L.J.-2333