HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 172 of 2021 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and Shri Akshat Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This is an appeal by the appellant/ petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 18.02.2021 passed in writ petition no. 31380 (S/S) of 2018. 3. The subject matter of challenge before the writ court was an order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the concerned opposite party after retirement of the appellant/ petitioner from the post of Executive Engineer on 31.10.2017. As per the impugned order the appellant/ petitioner was given a higher pay scale and paid excess salary in the year 1995. Accordingly, after his retirement when the pension papers were being processed, this error was detected and the same was rectified, albeit after retirement. On a challenge being made, though the writ court has allowed the writ petition quashing the recovery, but it has not adjudicated the merits of the order so far as the re-fixation of salary/ reduction of pay of the appellant/ petitioner is concerned. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shyam Krishna Srivastava .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt. Lucknow And Ors. .....Respondent(s) 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner is that this aspect should have been decided. 5. On being confronted the State counsel could not deny the fact that this was also an issue to be considered and decided by the writ court as based on its decision the post-retiral dues including pension payable to the appellant/ petitioner would have to be revised and in any case it would be affected. On account of there being no decision by the writ court on this issue, the pension would be revised to the disadvantage of the appellant/ petitioner and now he would get lesser pension based on the reduced salary, therefore, it was necessary for the writ court to have decided this issue so far as it was possible and permissible in writ jurisdiction. However, considering the fact that the writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order, insofar as it ordered for recovery of excess salary paid, has been quashed, without interfering with this part of the judgment, it is set aside only to the extent it does not consider the validity of re- fixation/ reduction of salary and it disposes of the writ petition and the writ petition is restored only for the purpose of consideration of merits of reduction/ re-fixation of salary (not the recovery part). 6. The appeal is allowed, accordingly. 7. The writ petition shall now come up before the writ court on November 17, 2025 for the limited purpose stated herein-above. It is open for the respondents to file supplementary counter affidavit in the writ petition justifying the reduction of salary. October 8, 2025 Arnima SPLA No. 172 of 2021 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench