Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50732 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19726 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chand Agrawal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate,Rajesh Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to amend the relief clause of the petition. He is, accordingly, permitted to do the same in the Court itself. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.11.2016 whereby pay fixation of the petitioners dated 17.03.1996 has come to be rectified holding the earlier pay fixation to be bad, after petitioners have attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016. 4. Two fold submissions have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners; firstly, petitioners having been already benefited for promotional pay scale in the year 1996 and the subsequent pay scales and there being no objection ever raised to the same, inasmuch as the petitioners himself were not responsible for such pay fixation and even the pension payment order was passed on the basis of such pay fixation on 30.06.2016 wherein the pension of the petitioners fixed as Rs.22,140/-, respondents were not justified in holding the previous fixation of pay to be bad and that too without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without issuing any notice much less a show cause notice to the petitioners and so without inviting objections and secondly, in view of the Government order issued by the State Government itself on 16.01.2007 providing that no correction in the pay fixation can be permitted at the time of retirement beyond a period of past 34 months. 5. In support of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon an authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and others, 2014 (16) SCC 444 in which vide paragraph No.11, it has been held that in the face of the Government Order dated 16.01.2007 that protects an employee from any intervention/interference by the Government authorities in the matter of pay fixation beyond a period of past 34 months from the date of retirement, no such rectification of the already awarded pay fixation and the consequential salary can be done and so also the recovery cannot be directed. Vide paragraph No.11 the Court has held thus: "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." 6. A counter affidavit has been filed in the matter on behalf of the State-respondent sworn by one Bhrigu Narayn Jha, the then Joint Director, Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Agra Division, Agra in which the status of the Government Order as applicable as on date has not been disputed. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.10 of the counter affidavit to justify the action taken by the respondents, impugned in this petition. 8. From reading of various averments made in the paragraphs of the counter affidavit, I do not find any statement made to the effect that petitioners were at all responsible for such pay fixation or that the petitioners ever represented the authority for a particular pay fixation, nor do I find that at any point of time any objection was raised to such pay fixation except the assessment as to the correctness of pay fixation that came to be made only after the retirement of the petitioners in the year 2017. It is apt here to reproduce clause 4 of the Government Order dated 16.01.2007 which in turns refers to an earlier Government Order dated 13.12.1977. The relevant provisions run as under: "4. शशसन कक उपरशनत आदकश अभभ तक पभशवभ हह परनतत सनदरभरत शशसनशदकश रदनशनक 05 रदसमबर, 2001 मम रदयक गयक रनदरशश कक दकखतक हहए पमशन पशधधकतशर अधधकशरभ रदनशनक 01-01- 86 सक पतनरभरकत वकतनमशनश मम वकतन रनधशररण तक कक जशजच भभ करनक लगक हह, धजससक पमशन पशधधकशर- पत रनगरत करनक मम रवलमब हकतश हह। अतत इस समबनध मम समयक रवचशरकपरशनत रशजयपशल महकदय दशरश रनमनशनरकत आदकश पदशन रकयक गयक हह:- (1) उक सनदरभरत शशसनशदकश रदनशनक 13 रदसमबर 1977 कक उपरकक पशवधशन कक हभ अनतसशर पमशन सवभकतशर अधधकशरभ दशरश पमशन सवभकक रत हकतत सकवशरनवकधत कक तशरभख सक 10 मशह पपवर कक पररलबबधयशज तथश उसकक 02 वरर पपवर अथशरत कत ल 34 महभनक कश ररकशरर हभ दकखश जशयकगश। (2) पमशन सवभकतशर अधधकशरभ कश रकसभ कमरचशरभ कक सकवशकशल मम वकतन कक रनधशररण मम ततरट कक ठभक करशनक कश दशरयतव उपरकक (1) मम रनधशरररत सभमश सक अधधक नहह हकगश। वकतन- रनधशररण कक ततरटयश कक कमरचशरभ कक सकवशरत रहतक हहए हभ सशमशनय जशजच/ आररट कक मशधयम सक दपर रकयक जशनक कक वयवसथश कक पभशचभ ढनग सक लशगप रकयश जशए। " 9. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that Government itself has decided not to permit any scrutiny and consequential rectification of pay fixation already done beyond a period of past 34 months from the date of retirement. Thus, any rectification, if sought to be done, it is to be done within the limit of 34 months. Supreme Court has come to interpret the Government Order in its judgment in the matter of Shushil Kumar Singhal (Supra) vide paragraph quoted already above. 10. Upon a pointed query being made, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not cite any judgment contrary to the above, inasmuch as, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has not even placed any amendment ever brought to the Government Order of the year 2007 in the light of the observations made in paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 11. In such above view of the matter, therefore, rectification of pay fixation of the petitioners dated 17.03.1996 and the consequential pay fixation and monetary benefits conferred upon the petitioners vide order dated 15.11.2016 are held to be absolutely unsustainable. 12. Thus, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 15.11.2016 impugned herein in this petition and filed as annexure- 6 to the petition, is hereby quashed. 13. The respondents are directed to finalize the pension of the petitioners on the basis of initial Pension Payment Order in which the basic pension of the petitioners was fixed as Rs.22,140/- within one month of certified copy of this judgment. The entire arrears, accordingly, shall be paid to the petitioners within a maximum period of two months of the computation to be done by the respondents in accordance with this judgment of the Court. 14. Before parting, the Court may further observe that while an administrative exercise of power takes place, it should be done reasonably and decision to be taken should be well informed one. The Government should always take notice of this and should always be careful that whenever the administrative authorities are exercising power, they should not act arbitrarily as has been done in this case, otherwise they will liable to be visited with cost or the State Government will be held responsible for the same. 15. Let copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for information in future course action in such pay fixation matter by the Chief Standing Counsel within three days. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 R.S. Tiwari Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad