High Court

2. Heard Shri M.P. Raju, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ- A No. 11575 of 2024, Writ-A No. 12367 of 2024, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-A No. 12080 of 2024, Shri Pankaj Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-A No. 11006 of 2024, Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-A No. 12733 of 2024, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. A short counter affidavit has been filed by Ms. Amrita Mishra, Superintendent of Police (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow in response to the query raised by this Court on

03.12.2024. This Court in no uncertain terms has expressed its concern with regard to the excess amount paid to the police personnel from the State Exchequer throughout his service career on account of wrong fixation of pay or allowance, which continues till the fag end of the service tenure. No efforts are made by the department to remove the errors pertaining to the wrong fixation of the salary which is all cases seems to be done on the higher side and it is sought to be reduced/deducted only fag end of their service career near their superannuation and recovery proceedings are initiated. It is not for the first time that the response has been called for from the respondents in this regard by this Court. This anomaly was noticed by this Court on previous occasion also and cognizance was taken in the case of Ram Gulam Vs. State of U.P. and four others in Writ-A No. 5238 of 2022 where-after seeking the response of the senior most official including Additional Chief Secretary (Home). This Court was informed that a committee was to be constituted in each district to re-examine the ACP/fixation of pay already given to the personnel, which has been quoted below:- "4. It has been further informed that that following remedial measures are proposed to be under taken :- (i) Committee at each district/Unit to re-examine the ACP/fixation of pay already given to the personnel. Committee may take assistance of TO/STO at district/Unit level and if required, assistance of FC branch at PHQ. (ii) Districts/Units will issue pay fixation orders after concurrence/vetting by FC branch of PHQ. (iii) To explore the possibilities of developing a software for this purpose. (iv) Conducting training of staff from each district/unit which is looking after pay fixation/ACP matters. Training to be conducted by experienced Auditors/Retd. Officers. (v) Outsourcing service of experts (Auditors) and efforts to fill up the existing vacancies on priority basis. (vi) A Committee to be formed under IG PHQ to suggest long/medium/short term measures to address the issue of faulty pay fixation. (vii) Proposal for creating new posts of Auditors/Accounts cadre Officers- Class-II Officers of Finance service at district/Unit level, Class-I officers of Finance Service at Department level alongwith Accountants and Assistant Accountants.

5. This Court is satisfied that the respondents have looked into this aspect. We hope and trust that the respondents will take effective measures immediately and scrutinise all the previous orders whereby ACP or any other allowance has been granted to the Police Officers from Constable to Inspector level, carefully and where ever it is discovered that fixation of their salary/allowance has been wrongly fixed, effective measures shall be taken for rectification and recovery of the same."

4. Despite the assurance given to this Court, it seems that nothing has been done and no effective exercise has been conducted by the respondents, considering the fact that a large number of petitions are being filed regularly assailing the re- fixation of salary after 20-30 years and also seeking setting aside of recovery orders in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC

334. The majority of the government servants are from police department and surprisingly, all of them are rank of Inspector or below.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, when this Court was of the view that in-fact no remedial measure has been undertaken by the respondents to curb the Menace of payment of higher salary than what was permissible/admissible that cognizance has been taken again to elicit a response from the respondents. No satisfactory explanation has been submitted by the respondents and one of the grounds stated by the Superintendent of Police (Establishment) that the post of Additional Director General of Police (Establishment) is vacant.

6. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the State Exchequer cannot be permitted to be bleeded/drained illegally and arbitrarily in the manner, it is being done and despite repeated directions issued by this Court, no action has been taken by the respondent despite assurance given from time to time.

7. In light of the above, let the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow be present before this Court along with Additional Director General (Establishment) or any other officer who is holding the said charge to inform this Court as to why the compliance has not been made as per the assurance given by them in the case of Ram Gulam Vs. State of U.P. and four others in Writ-A No. 5238 of 2022.

8. List this case on 13.02.2025 in top ten cases.

9. Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date of listing. . Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.)

2. Heard Shri M.P. Raju, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ- A No. 11575 of 2024, Writ-A No. 12367 of 2024, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-A No. 12080 of 2024, Shri Pankaj Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-A No. 11006 of 2024, Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ-A No. 12733 of 2024, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. A short counter affidavit has been filed by Ms. Amrita Mishra, Superintendent of Police (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow in response to the query raised by this Court on

03.12.2024. This Court in no uncertain terms has expressed its concern with regard to the excess amount paid to the police personnel from the State Exchequer throughout his service career on account of wrong fixation of pay or allowance, which continues till the fag end of the service tenure. No efforts are made by the department to remove the errors pertaining to the wrong fixation of the salary which is all cases seems to be done on the higher side and it is sought to be reduced/deducted only fag end of their service career near their superannuation and recovery proceedings are initiated. It is not for the first time that the response has been called for from the respondents in this regard by this Court. This anomaly was noticed by this Court on previous occasion also and cognizance was taken in the case of Ram Gulam Vs. State of U.P. and four others in Writ-A No. 5238 of 2022 where-after seeking the response of the senior most official including Additional Chief Secretary (Home). This Court was informed that a committee was to be constituted in each district to re-examine the ACP/fixation of pay already given to the personnel, which has been quoted below:- "4. It has been further informed that that following remedial measures are proposed to be under taken :- (i) Committee at each district/Unit to re-examine the ACP/fixation of pay already given to the personnel. Committee may take assistance of TO/STO at district/Unit level and if required, assistance of FC branch at PHQ. (ii) Districts/Units will issue pay fixation orders after concurrence/vetting by FC branch of PHQ. (iii) To explore the possibilities of developing a software for this purpose. (iv) Conducting training of staff from each district/unit which is looking after pay fixation/ACP matters. Training to be conducted by experienced Auditors/Retd. Officers. (v) Outsourcing service of experts (Auditors) and efforts to fill up the existing vacancies on priority basis. (vi) A Committee to be formed under IG PHQ to suggest long/medium/short term measures to address the issue of faulty pay fixation. (vii) Proposal for creating new posts of Auditors/Accounts cadre Officers- Class-II Officers of Finance service at district/Unit level, Class-I officers of Finance Service at Department level alongwith Accountants and Assistant Accountants.

5. This Court is satisfied that the respondents have looked into this aspect. We hope and trust that the respondents will take effective measures immediately and scrutinise all the previous orders whereby ACP or any other allowance has been granted to the Police Officers from Constable to Inspector level, carefully and where ever it is discovered that fixation of their salary/allowance has been wrongly fixed, effective measures shall be taken for rectification and recovery of the same."

4. Despite the assurance given to this Court, it seems that nothing has been done and no effective exercise has been conducted by the respondents, considering the fact that a large number of petitions are being filed regularly assailing the re- fixation of salary after 20-30 years and also seeking setting aside of recovery orders in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC

334. The majority of the government servants are from police department and surprisingly, all of them are rank of Inspector or below.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, when this Court was of the view that in-fact no remedial measure has been undertaken by the respondents to curb the Menace of payment of higher salary than what was permissible/admissible that cognizance has been taken again to elicit a response from the respondents. No satisfactory explanation has been submitted by the respondents and one of the grounds stated by the Superintendent of Police (Establishment) that the post of Additional Director General of Police (Establishment) is vacant.

6. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the State Exchequer cannot be permitted to be bleeded/drained illegally and arbitrarily in the manner, it is being done and despite repeated directions issued by this Court, no action has been taken by the respondent despite assurance given from time to time.

7. In light of the above, let the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow be present before this Court along with Additional Director General (Establishment) or any other officer who is holding the said charge to inform this Court as to why the compliance has not been made as per the assurance given by them in the case of Ram Gulam Vs. State of U.P. and four others in Writ-A No. 5238 of 2022.

8. List this case on 13.02.2025 in top ten cases.

9. Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date of listing. . Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.)