Allahabad High Court
Benami Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:57268
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 3818 of 2024
Benami Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anurag Narain Srivastava, Rakesh Chandra Tewari, Shailendra Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 8
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2.This writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:
"i. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 02/01/2024, 05/09/2023, 01/08/2023 and order dated 24/07/2023 passed by Joint Director Administration Family welfare Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as contained in annexure no.1, 2, 3 and 4 to this writ petition.
ii. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents particularly to respondent no-2 to pay the entire terminal / retrial benefits, pension, Gratuity, leave encashment and 3rd ACP of the petitioner after taking into account the total length services of the petitioner including ad-hoc services i.e. 3-12- 1987 to 31-5-2022.
3. It has been submitted that once service benefit of A.C.P. had been granted to petitioner w.e.f. 3.12.2001, the opposite parties could not have withdrawn the aforesaid benefit by means of impugned order without indicating any reasons for deviating with the earlier grant of such benefit only on ground of recommendations by the Pay Committee of 2008.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in Ram Krit Ram v. State of U.P. [Writ Petition No.2582(S/S) of 2011] to submit that for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits as in the case of petitioner who has superannuated in 2017, pay-fixation of such an employee prior to 34 months from the date of superannuation is not to be interfered with even if it has been incorrectly fixed particularly in view of various judgments as well as Rule 22B of the U.P. Fundamental Rules.
5. Learned State Counsel does not dispute applicability of aforesaid judgments in present facts and circumstance of the case. Even otherwise, from a reading of aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the said judgment has been passed following the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others, reported in 2014(2) ESC 271 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the judgement is quoted hereinbelow:
"7. Upon perusal of the aforestated G.O. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the appellant had retired on 31st December, 2003 and at the time of his retirement his salary was Rs.11,625/- and on the basis of the said salary his pension had been fixed as Rs.9000/-. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the appellant could have been reduced.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent employer could not deny any of the facts stated hereinabove.
9. In the aforestated circumstances, the High Court was not correct while permitting the respondent authorities to reduce the pension payable to the appellant by not setting aside the order whereby excess amount of salary paid to the appellant was sought to be recovered.
10. For the aforestated reasons, we quash the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and direct the respondents not to recover any amount of salary which had been paid to the appellant in pursuance of some mistake committed in pay fixation in 1986. The amount of pension shall also not be reduced and the appellant shall be paid pension as fixed earlier at the time of his retirement. It is pertinent to note that the Government had framed such a policy under its G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 and therefore, the respondent authorities could not have taken a different view in the matter of re-fixing pension of the appellant.
11. The submission made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appellant would be getting more amount than what he was entitled to cannot be accepted in view of the policy laid down by the Government in G.O. dated 16th January, 2007. If the Government feels that mistakes are committed very often, it would be open to the Government to change its policy but as far as the G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 is in force, the respondent-employer could not have passed any order for recovery of the excess salary paid to the appellant or for reducing pension of the appellant.
12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment as well as the order dated 23.03.2005 whereby salary of the appellant was re-fixed and order dated 23.04.2005 whereby recovery of excess amount of Rs.99,522/- was ordered to be recovered from the appellant. The appellant shall be paid pension which had been determined at the time of his retirement, i.e. immediately after 31st December, 2003. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs."
6. Considering the aforesaid facts that present case is squarely covered by aforesaid judgments as well as Fundamental Rules, impugned order dated 20.01.2020 is quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite parties to provide pensionary benefits to petitioner as indicated in paragraph 16 of the petition.
7. Benefits as claimed shall be paid to petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. Since petitioner has superannuated in year 2022, with such post-retiral benefits having been withheld, the opposite parties are also directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it was due till the date of actual payment.
8. The writ petition consequently succeeds and is allowed. The parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
September 10, 2025
AKK
