State Of Up And 2 Others vs Satish Chandra Singh And 10 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8827 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of Up And 2 Others vs Satish Chandra Singh And 10 Others on 9 April, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51642-DB
 

 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 3 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- State Of Up And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Satish Chandra Singh And 10 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Rama Nand Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by 11 respondents vide observations contained in paragraphs 15 to 17 of the judgment dated 22.08.2024, which reads as under:

"15. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled to notional increments in each of their cases for the year commencing 1st July and ending with 30th of June of the year in which they have respectively retired. The notional increments for each of the eleven petitioners for the respective years in which they have earned it notionally would enure to their benefit and entitled them to a revision of their pension with effect from the date that it fell due in each of their cases. The petitioners would, therefore, be entitled to arrears, not on account of the revised salary, but the revised pension from the date of their respective entitlement.

16. It is made clear that notional increments to each petitioners will be payable in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani and not the Government Order dated 12.06.2024.

17. There shall be no order as to costs."

2. In paragraph 9, learned Single Judge has noticed the date of retirement of all the 11 respondent-petitioners, which reads as under:

SI No.

Name

Date of retirement

Post at the time of retirement

Place of retirement

Satish Chandra Singh (Petitioner No. 1)

30/06/2023

Block Organizer (Salaried)

District Home guards office, Pratapgarh

Subhas Chand Jaiwal

(Petitioner No. 2)

30/06/2017

Platoon Commander (Salaried)

District Home guards office, Varanasi

Prem Chandra

(Petitioner No. 3)

30/06/2022

Platoon Commander (Salaried)

District Home guards office, Hamirpur

Ran Naresh Sharma

(Petitioner No. 4)

30/06/2021

Platoon Commander (Salaried)

District Home guards office, Bareilly

Rajesh Kumar Shukla

(Petitioner No. 5)

30/06/2020

Platoon Commander (Salaried)

District Home guards office, Pratapgarh

Sant Ram Verma

(Petitioner No. 6)

30/06/2019

Platoon Commander (Salaried)

District Home guards office, Pratapgarh

Amar Pal Singh

(Petitioner No. 7)

30/06/2015

Platoon Commander (Salaried)

Regional Training Centre Home guards, Aligarh

Nand Lal Yadav

(Petitioner No. 8)

30/06/2022

Inspector

(Salaried)

District Home guards office, Azamgarh

Sher Pratap Singh

(Petitioner No. 9)

30/06/2019

Inspector

(Salaried)

District Home guards office, Lucknow

Ram Prakash Dixit

(Petitioner No. 10)

30/06/2021

Inspector

(Salaried)

District Home guards office, Barabanki

Shyam Pyare Ram

(Petitioner No. 11)

30/06/2024

District Commandant

(Salaried)

District Home guards office, Balrampur

3. Composite writ petition has been filed by all the respondents on 10th December, 2024. It is in this writ petition that learned Single Judge has granted the aforesaid relief.

4. Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State contends that the issue with regard to entitlement of the retiring employee to receive benefit of annual increment, falling due on the date next to his superannuation, has been settled by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023, The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (supra) formed the basis for large number of similar claims by retired employees of various organizations for grant of annual increment and consequential redetermination of pension and for payment of arrears etc. Union Government, therefore, filed a review before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, in which following orders came to be passed by the Supreme Court on 6.9.2024:

"It is stated that the Review Petition in Diary No. 36418/2024 ed by the Union of India is pending.

The issue raised in the present applications requires ideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the judgment ted 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled "Director and HR) KPTCL, and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others", to third parties is concerned.

We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed.

To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that:

(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.

(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.

(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.

(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed."

5. The review matter has since been decided finally by the Supreme Court vide following orders passed on 20.02.2025:

"Delay condoned.

We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as under:

"(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.

(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.

(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.

(d) In case application retired employee has any for intervention/impleadment filed any in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed."

We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as under:

"(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for intervention/impleadment/writ application before the Central petition/original Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ petition/ original application was filed."

Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj", as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.

Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered.

It will be open to any person aggrieved by non-compliance with the directions and the clarification of this Court, in the present order, to approach the concerned authorities in the first instance and, if required, the Administrative Tribunal or High Court, as per law.

Pending applications including all intervention/impleadment applications shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.

Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary Nos. 38437/2023, 38438/2023, 11336/2024 and 20636/2024

In view of the order passed today in the connected matters, that is, M.A. Diary No. 2400 OF 2024 and other connected applications, the present contempt petitions will be treated as disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate remedies, if required and necessary, as indicated supra. It goes without saying that the respondents shall examine the cases of the petitioners/ applicants in terms of the order passed today and comply with the same expeditiously.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

6. The initial judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore, stands appropriately reviewed vide judgment and order dated 20.02.2025, as a result of which, cases of third parties would have to be dealt with from the date of initial judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023. The position, however, will be different in respect of those persons who had previously filed petitions and final orders were already passed.

7. In the facts of the present case, the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-petitioners after the review petition was entertained on 6.9.2024 and the interim direction was issued by the Supreme Court restricting the benefit of the initial judgment in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) from the date of order dated 11.04.2023.

8. Once that be so, we find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge granting such benefit from an anterior date would clearly be in teeth of the orders passed by the Supreme Court.

9. We, accordingly, modify the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and direct the State authorities to compute the entitlement of the respondent-petitioners in the light of the orders of the Supreme Court and the benefit would be restricted from the date of judgment dated 11.04.2023. Enhanced pension for the period will be payable only after 1.5.2023.

10. The special appeal of the State, accordingly, is disposed of.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025

Noman