Allahabad High Court
Suraj Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 19 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:206632
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17386 of 2025
Suraj Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Constable on 20.11.1983 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 2001 and Sub-Inspector in the year 2015 and thereafter superannuated on 30.09.2023. However, according to the writ petitioner, on 25.08.2023, an exercise has been undertaken by the respondents whereby the pay-scale of the writ petitioner has been reduced to the detrament while relying upon the directions contained in Writ-A No. 5238 of 2022 (Ram Gulam v. State of U.P. and 4 others).
3. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that once the writ petitioner stood retired then they could not have been changed in the fixation and consequently, no recovery could have been done. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 438. He also relies upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India and others; (1994) 6 SCC 154. He further submits that the entire action is unilateral, behind the back of the writ petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, it is always upon the employer to correct the mistake if it has occurred but according to him, it is not forthcoming from the order impugned that the writ petitioner shall put to notice and the matter would be revisited after considering the each and every aspect of the matter.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
7. Apparently, the writ petitioner retired as Sub-Inspector on 30.09.2023 and the impugned order came to be passed on 25.08.2023 which is prior to the retirement of the writ petitioner. In Hon'ble Apex Court Judgement in Bhagwan Shukla (supra) had observed as under:
"3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970."
8. Since it is not forthcoming from the order impugned that the refixation and the consequential recovery has been done post issuance of the show cause notice to the writ petitioner, thus, the matter needs to be revisited.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in following terms:-
(a) The writ petitioner shall file a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.4 by 05.12.2025.
(b) Thereafter the competent authority shall put to notice the writ petitioner and after furnishing of the documents, which the writ petitioner seeks to be furnished take a decision within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The orders dated 25.08.2023 and 29.09.2023 and the recovery so made shall be dependent upon the fresh orders to be passed therein.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 19, 2025
A. Prajapati
