Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... ... vs Anand Singh Rawat & Others on 13 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
13th FEBRUARY, 2024
Special Appeal No. 274 OF 2023
State of Uttarakhand & others ... Appellants
Versus
Anand Singh Rawat & others ... Respondents
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants
Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for respondent no. 1
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learnd counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
JUDGMENT :
(per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
1. For the reasons indicated in the delay
condonation application, the delay of 272 days in filing the
special appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the delay
condonation application (CLMA No. 01 of 2023) is allowed.
2. State of Uttarakhand has filed this intra-court
appeal challenging the judgment dated 03.08.2022
rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPSS
No. 100 of 2016. By the said judgment, writ petition, filed
by Mr. Anand Singh Rawat (respondent no. 1 herein), was
allowed. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is
reproduced below:-
"13. In that eventuality, and for the reason
assigned above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned orders No. 1859/689 dated 16.11.2015
(Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and the order No.
1860/689 dated 16.11.2015, are hereby set aside
and the consequential effect of the quashing of the
impugned orders would be, that the petitioner would
be continued to be extended with the revised scale as
already settled to be paid to him in pursuance to the
decision of 11.08.2014, as rendered by the
Commissioner, in the light of the conditions of
Government Order dated 25.09.2013.
14. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands
allowed."
3. It is not in dispute that vide order dated
11.08.2014 passed by Food Commissioner, Uttarakhand,
writ petitioner was given Grade Pay of ₹4600
w.e.f. 01.08.2006. Upon grant of Grade Pay of ₹4600, he
made representation to the Food Commissioner,
contending that since his counter parts, serving in State of
Uttar Pradesh, were given Grade Pay of ₹4200 w.e.f.
01.01.2006, while he was paid Grade Pay of ₹2800 in
State of Uttarakhand after his relieving from Uttar Pradesh
on 07.04.2006, therefore, he be given Grade Pay of
₹4200/- w.e.f. date of his joining in Uttarakhand. The
representation made by petitioner was rejected by Food
Commissioner, Uttarakhand, who also cancelled his order
dated 11.08.2014, whereby writ petitioner was granted
Grade Pay of ₹4600. Thus feeling aggrieved, writ
petitioner, challenged the order dated 16.11.2015 passed
by Food Commissioner, in a writ petition. Learned Single
Judge has allowed the writ petition by the impugned
judgment, which is impugned in this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
5. Learned Single Judge has considered and
discussed all relevant aspects in great detail and has held
that Food Commissioner, Uttarakhand could not have
unilaterally reviewed his order dated 11.08.2014, whereby
Grade Pay of ₹4600 was granted to writ petitioner w.e.f.
01.08.2006. Learned Single Judge has further held that
the order dated 11.08.2014 was passed by Food
Commissioner pursuant to policy decision contained in
Government Order dated 25.09.2013 and unless the
Government Policy is changed or withdrawn, a benefit
given pursuant to such Government Policy could not have
been withdrawn. Learned Single Judge has further held
that the cancellation order dated 16.11.2015 was passed
in violation of principles of natural justice, as writ
petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing while
withdrawing the monetary benefits earlier granted to him.
6. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner retired
from the post of Administrative Officer upon completing
age of superannuation, on 30.09.2010. The manner in
which the Grade Pay of writ petitioner was reduced, five
years after his retirement, cannot be justified. It is not in
dispute that writ petitioner was not heard while
withdrawing the benefit of Higher Grade Pay which was
granted to him by the Competent Authority. Learned
Single Judge has given valid reasons for setting aside the
order dated 16.11.215 passed by Food Commissioner,
Uttarakhand.
7. This Court is not persuaded to take a view
different from the one taken by learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment. Thus, there is no scope for
interference with the impugned judgment.
8. Accordingly, special appeal is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
________________________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
_____________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 13th FEBRUARY, 2024
Aswal
