High Court · 2025

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, I find a letter of the Police Headquarter Lucknow to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad dated 27th February, 2020 that has been brought on record, which shows that there was some doubt raised regarding benefit given to the petitioner of 24 years of service of petitioner as on 25th February, 2021, however, in reply thereto Senior Superintendent of Police wrote a letter on 25th March, 2020, but I find that the order dated 22nd September, 2020 by which pay fixation has been re-revised. In the circumstances, petitioner at least deserved an opportunity to offer explanation to defend the alleged wrongful pay fixation. Thus, consequential order accordingly came to be ordered on 31st December, 2020, in violation of principles of natural justice. This order is also under challenge. In the considered view of the Court, once pay scale of employee sought to be corrected on account of alleged fact that some wrongful pay fixation might have taken place for some confusion or deliberate act then in these circumstances authority shall have to take recourse to the procedure prescribed for and have also to follow the Government Order or circular issued from time to time by the State Government. In the present case, the correction is sought to be made w.e.f. 2004 and yet Government Order dated

16.01.2007 has not been taken into consideration, which absolutely bars such correction prior to 34 months of the date of retirement of the employee. Thus government order has been further interpreted by Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Others, 2014 (16) SCC 444, in which vide paragraph 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." Admittedly, petitioner stood retired in January, 2020 and correction took place on 31st December, 2020 that too w.e.f. 2024, therefore, it was clearly hit by Government Order that bars such correction in the pay fixation. Besides this, I find that no notice much less a show cause was issued as recitals are absolutely silent both in the order of re-fixation of pay on 22nd September, 2020 and consequential order passed on 31st December, 2020 . Thus both orders are held to be absolutely untenable. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Supreme Court has very clearly held vide paragraph 14 that no recovery as such could have been ordered for its post retirement dues in the event he has not been guilty for the alleged pay scale. In the entire counter affidavit, since there is no averment that petitioner was not at all responsible for the alleged wrongful pay fixation, therefore, judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Others (supra) would apply to the facts of the present case as well. In view of above, on both the counts of pay fixation having taken place beyond period of 34 months from the date of retirments of the petitioner as well as consequential recovery being violation of principles of natural justice and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (supra) the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Petition succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The order dated 22.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 31.12.2020 passed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Accounts) DDO Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Sanjeev SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, I find a letter of the Police Headquarter Lucknow to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad dated 27th February, 2020 that has been brought on record, which shows that there was some doubt raised regarding benefit given to the petitioner of 24 years of service of petitioner as on 25th February, 2021, however, in reply thereto Senior Superintendent of Police wrote a letter on 25th March, 2020, but I find that the order dated 22nd September, 2020 by which pay fixation has been re-revised. In the circumstances, petitioner at least deserved an opportunity to offer explanation to defend the alleged wrongful pay fixation. Thus, consequential order accordingly came to be ordered on 31st December, 2020, in violation of principles of natural justice. This order is also under challenge. In the considered view of the Court, once pay scale of employee sought to be corrected on account of alleged fact that some wrongful pay fixation might have taken place for some confusion or deliberate act then in these circumstances authority shall have to take recourse to the procedure prescribed for and have also to follow the Government Order or circular issued from time to time by the State Government. In the present case, the correction is sought to be made w.e.f. 2004 and yet Government Order dated

16.01.2007 has not been taken into consideration, which absolutely bars such correction prior to 34 months of the date of retirement of the employee. Thus government order has been further interpreted by Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Others, 2014 (16) SCC 444, in which vide paragraph 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." Admittedly, petitioner stood retired in January, 2020 and correction took place on 31st December, 2020 that too w.e.f. 2024, therefore, it was clearly hit by Government Order that bars such correction in the pay fixation. Besides this, I find that no notice much less a show cause was issued as recitals are absolutely silent both in the order of re-fixation of pay on 22nd September, 2020 and consequential order passed on 31st December, 2020 . Thus both orders are held to be absolutely untenable. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Supreme Court has very clearly held vide paragraph 14 that no recovery as such could have been ordered for its post retirement dues in the event he has not been guilty for the alleged pay scale. In the entire counter affidavit, since there is no averment that petitioner was not at all responsible for the alleged wrongful pay fixation, therefore, judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Others (supra) would apply to the facts of the present case as well. In view of above, on both the counts of pay fixation having taken place beyond period of 34 months from the date of retirments of the petitioner as well as consequential recovery being violation of principles of natural justice and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (supra) the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Petition succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The order dated 22.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 31.12.2020 passed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Accounts) DDO Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Sanjeev SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad