High Court · 2025

14.03.1995. He was later confirmed in service in the year 1997. He was placed in the grade pay of Rs 5000-8000. The pay-scale was revised with effect from 03.12.1997 and was awarded to the appellant on 26.02.1998.

3. A Government Order dated 08.12.2008 came to be issued pursuant to the revised Pay Commission Report, which was made effective from 01.01.2006 wherein an upgraded pay-scale/grade pay was sanctioned. Clause-3 of this Government Order provided that time-scale and personal promotion was to be granted with effect from 01.01.2006 or any subsequent date for which an option was exercised by the employee concerned.

4. Paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008, reads as under: "उ्ሹ सल्ሿ तताललकता कके अननुसतार पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता मम वकेतन / वकेतनमतान , एव गकेड वकेतन ऐसके पदधतारकोሗ कको भरी ववैयक्ሹक रुप सके अननुमन्य हकोगता , जको रताज्य सरकतार दतारता अपनतायरी गयरी समयमतान वकेतनमतान ककी व्यवस्थता कके अन्तगरत कनधतारररत सकेवता अवलध / 'शतरसं ककी पपूकतर पर ववैयक्ሹक रुप सके पको्ቐकत कके पद कता वकेतनमतान अथवता उच्च वकेतनमतान कदनताक 01 जनवररी 2006 अथवता ककोई अननुवतरी कतलथ लजससके ससंशकोलधत वकेतन ससंरचनता कको सम्बनन्धत दतारता चनुनके जतानके कता कवकल्प कदयता गयता हरी कको पता्቎ कर रहके थके"

5. In terms of the aforesaid Government Order, the appellant submitted his option on 12.01.2009 claiming the benefit of the revised pay-scale with effect from 15.03.2009. This was apparently done as, by the opted date, the appellant was to complete 14 years of service so as to secure a higher pay-scale in the previous scale of pay.

6. The Government Order dated 08.12.2008 came to be modified on 04.05.2010 wherein A.C.P. Scheme was amended pursuant to recommendation of the Pay Commission Report. Clause-1 of this Government Order is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter: "उ्ሹ नई व्यवस्थता पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता मम कदनतासंक 01 कदसम्बर 2008 सके पभतावरी हकोगरी। कदनतासंक 30 नवम्बर, 2008 तक पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता मम सभरी वकेतन बवैण्ड एवसं गकेड वकेतन कके पदधतारकोሗ हकेतनु समयमतान वकेतनमतान ककी पपूवर व्यवस्थता हरी लतागपू रहकेगरी। पररणतामस्वरूप कदनतासंक 01 जनवररी 1996 सके लतागपू वकेतनमतानोሗ मम रू0 8000-13500 यता उससके उच्च वकेतनमतान कके पदधतारकोሗ कके सम्बन्ध मम समयमतान वकेतनमतान ककी कदनतासंक 31 कदसम्बर, 2005 तक हरी पभतावरी पपूवर व्यवस्थता अब कदनतासंक 30 नवम्बर 2008 तक लतागपू समझरी जतायकेगरी। 08 कदसम्बर, 2008 शतासनतादकेश ससंखयता-वके०आ०-2-1314/दस-59(एम) / 2008 कदनतासंक कता पस्तर-4 इस सरीमता तक ससंशकोलधत समझता जतायकेगता।"

7. Paragraph No.8 of the Government Order is also relevant and is reproduced hereinafter: " ए०सरी०परी० ककी उपरको्ሹ व्यवस्थता कके सन्दभर मम शतासनतादकेश ससंखयता-वके०आ०-2- तथता शतासनतादकेश ससंखयता- कदनतासंक 08 कदसम्बर, 2008 1318/दस-59 एम/2008, वके०आ०-2-1632/दस-59 (एम)/2008, कके अन्तगरत पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता चनुननके कके सम्बन्ध मम कदयके गयके कवकल्प कके स्थतान पर ससंशकोलधत कदनतासंक 05 नवम्बर, 2009 कवकल्प इस शतासनतादकेश कके जताररी हकोनके ककी कतलथ सके 90 जता सकके गता।" कदन कके अन्दर पस्तनुत ककयता

8. The respondents placed the appellant in the revised pay-scale with effect from 15.03.2009. A notice subsequently was issued to the appellant stating that, in view of the Government Order dated

04.05.2010, the option to avail of the revised pay-scale from a date other than the date fixed therein was impermissible and, therefore, the higher pay-scale granted to the appellant was withdrawn and a direction was issued to recover the surplus amount paid to him. It was this order which came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.

9. Learned Single Judge has relied upon paragraph No.1 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010 to hold that the option made available under previous Government Order dated 08.12.2008, stood modified in terms of the Government Order of 04.05.2010 and, therefore, the petitioner could not have placed reliance upon the earlier Government Order for retaining the benefit extended to him. Consequently, the writ petition has been dismissed.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the interpretation given to Clause-1 of Government Order dated

04.05.2010 is not correct, inasmuch as the Government Order of

04.05.2010, merely modified the previous Government Order of

08.12.2008 and that the option made permissible under the previous Government Order was not withdrawn.

11. Shri G.K. Singh also places reliance upon paragraph 8 of the aforesaid Government Order to submit that if only one exigency was to remain after the Government Order dated 04.05.2010, inasmuch as the revised pay scale was to be made applicable from

30.11.2008, then Clause-8 of the Government Order dated

04.05.2010, inviting modified options within a period of 90 days, was not required. It is also submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition is otherwise wholly cryptic and does not deal with the grievance of the appellant noticed above.

12. The appeal is opposed by Shri D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, who argues that in terms of Clause-1 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010, the benefit of revised pay-scale had to be extended with effect from

30.11.2008 in place of the earlier proposed date i.e. 01.01.2006 and that no further option to seek such benefit from a later date was permissible.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the order of the concerned authority impugned in the writ petition does not deal with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant. Learned Single Judge has barely taken note of paragraph 1 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010. In the event the revised pay- scale was to be extended with effect from 30.11.2008 only, and no option but to shift the date to a subsequent point in time was permissible, then there was no occasion for Clause-8 to exist.

14. There is no consideration either in the order of the authority concerned or in the judgment of the learned Single Judge with regard to the import of Clause-8 of the Government Order. Once the Government Order extended a further opportunity to exercise an option, it would clearly indicate that the date of 30.11.2008, was not fixed and that a subsequent date could be opted by the employee concerned. Since on this aspect, there is neither any consideration nor any adjudication, as such, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remitted to the concerned authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter.

15. For such purposes, we interfere in the present appeal and the order dated 01.08.2013 passed in Writ-A No.41578 of 2011 as well as the order dated 21.06.2011 impugned in the writ petition are set aside.

16. This above appeal, accordingly, is disposed of with a direction upon the authorities concerned to revisit the matter, keeping in view the provision contained in Clause-8 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010 by passing a reasoned order within a period of 3 months. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

14.03.1995. He was later confirmed in service in the year 1997. He was placed in the grade pay of Rs 5000-8000. The pay-scale was revised with effect from 03.12.1997 and was awarded to the appellant on 26.02.1998.

3. A Government Order dated 08.12.2008 came to be issued pursuant to the revised Pay Commission Report, which was made effective from 01.01.2006 wherein an upgraded pay-scale/grade pay was sanctioned. Clause-3 of this Government Order provided that time-scale and personal promotion was to be granted with effect from 01.01.2006 or any subsequent date for which an option was exercised by the employee concerned.

4. Paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008, reads as under: "उ्ሹ सल्ሿ तताललकता कके अननुसतार पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता मम वकेतन / वकेतनमतान , एव गकेड वकेतन ऐसके पदधतारकोሗ कको भरी ववैयक्ሹक रुप सके अननुमन्य हकोगता , जको रताज्य सरकतार दतारता अपनतायरी गयरी समयमतान वकेतनमतान ककी व्यवस्थता कके अन्तगरत कनधतारररत सकेवता अवलध / 'शतरसं ककी पपूकतर पर ववैयक्ሹक रुप सके पको्ቐकत कके पद कता वकेतनमतान अथवता उच्च वकेतनमतान कदनताक 01 जनवररी 2006 अथवता ककोई अननुवतरी कतलथ लजससके ससंशकोलधत वकेतन ससंरचनता कको सम्बनन्धत दतारता चनुनके जतानके कता कवकल्प कदयता गयता हरी कको पता्቎ कर रहके थके"

5. In terms of the aforesaid Government Order, the appellant submitted his option on 12.01.2009 claiming the benefit of the revised pay-scale with effect from 15.03.2009. This was apparently done as, by the opted date, the appellant was to complete 14 years of service so as to secure a higher pay-scale in the previous scale of pay.

6. The Government Order dated 08.12.2008 came to be modified on 04.05.2010 wherein A.C.P. Scheme was amended pursuant to recommendation of the Pay Commission Report. Clause-1 of this Government Order is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter: "उ्ሹ नई व्यवस्थता पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता मम कदनतासंक 01 कदसम्बर 2008 सके पभतावरी हकोगरी। कदनतासंक 30 नवम्बर, 2008 तक पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता मम सभरी वकेतन बवैण्ड एवसं गकेड वकेतन कके पदधतारकोሗ हकेतनु समयमतान वकेतनमतान ककी पपूवर व्यवस्थता हरी लतागपू रहकेगरी। पररणतामस्वरूप कदनतासंक 01 जनवररी 1996 सके लतागपू वकेतनमतानोሗ मम रू0 8000-13500 यता उससके उच्च वकेतनमतान कके पदधतारकोሗ कके सम्बन्ध मम समयमतान वकेतनमतान ककी कदनतासंक 31 कदसम्बर, 2005 तक हरी पभतावरी पपूवर व्यवस्थता अब कदनतासंक 30 नवम्बर 2008 तक लतागपू समझरी जतायकेगरी। 08 कदसम्बर, 2008 शतासनतादकेश ससंखयता-वके०आ०-2-1314/दस-59(एम) / 2008 कदनतासंक कता पस्तर-4 इस सरीमता तक ससंशकोलधत समझता जतायकेगता।"

7. Paragraph No.8 of the Government Order is also relevant and is reproduced hereinafter: " ए०सरी०परी० ककी उपरको्ሹ व्यवस्थता कके सन्दभर मम शतासनतादकेश ससंखयता-वके०आ०-2- तथता शतासनतादकेश ससंखयता- कदनतासंक 08 कदसम्बर, 2008 1318/दस-59 एम/2008, वके०आ०-2-1632/दस-59 (एम)/2008, कके अन्तगरत पनुनररीकቌኌत वकेतन ससंरचनता चनुननके कके सम्बन्ध मम कदयके गयके कवकल्प कके स्थतान पर ससंशकोलधत कदनतासंक 05 नवम्बर, 2009 कवकल्प इस शतासनतादकेश कके जताररी हकोनके ककी कतलथ सके 90 जता सकके गता।" कदन कके अन्दर पस्तनुत ककयता

8. The respondents placed the appellant in the revised pay-scale with effect from 15.03.2009. A notice subsequently was issued to the appellant stating that, in view of the Government Order dated

04.05.2010, the option to avail of the revised pay-scale from a date other than the date fixed therein was impermissible and, therefore, the higher pay-scale granted to the appellant was withdrawn and a direction was issued to recover the surplus amount paid to him. It was this order which came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.

9. Learned Single Judge has relied upon paragraph No.1 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010 to hold that the option made available under previous Government Order dated 08.12.2008, stood modified in terms of the Government Order of 04.05.2010 and, therefore, the petitioner could not have placed reliance upon the earlier Government Order for retaining the benefit extended to him. Consequently, the writ petition has been dismissed.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the interpretation given to Clause-1 of Government Order dated

04.05.2010 is not correct, inasmuch as the Government Order of

04.05.2010, merely modified the previous Government Order of

08.12.2008 and that the option made permissible under the previous Government Order was not withdrawn.

11. Shri G.K. Singh also places reliance upon paragraph 8 of the aforesaid Government Order to submit that if only one exigency was to remain after the Government Order dated 04.05.2010, inasmuch as the revised pay scale was to be made applicable from

30.11.2008, then Clause-8 of the Government Order dated

04.05.2010, inviting modified options within a period of 90 days, was not required. It is also submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition is otherwise wholly cryptic and does not deal with the grievance of the appellant noticed above.

12. The appeal is opposed by Shri D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, who argues that in terms of Clause-1 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010, the benefit of revised pay-scale had to be extended with effect from

30.11.2008 in place of the earlier proposed date i.e. 01.01.2006 and that no further option to seek such benefit from a later date was permissible.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the order of the concerned authority impugned in the writ petition does not deal with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant. Learned Single Judge has barely taken note of paragraph 1 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010. In the event the revised pay- scale was to be extended with effect from 30.11.2008 only, and no option but to shift the date to a subsequent point in time was permissible, then there was no occasion for Clause-8 to exist.

14. There is no consideration either in the order of the authority concerned or in the judgment of the learned Single Judge with regard to the import of Clause-8 of the Government Order. Once the Government Order extended a further opportunity to exercise an option, it would clearly indicate that the date of 30.11.2008, was not fixed and that a subsequent date could be opted by the employee concerned. Since on this aspect, there is neither any consideration nor any adjudication, as such, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remitted to the concerned authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter.

15. For such purposes, we interfere in the present appeal and the order dated 01.08.2013 passed in Writ-A No.41578 of 2011 as well as the order dated 21.06.2011 impugned in the writ petition are set aside.

16. This above appeal, accordingly, is disposed of with a direction upon the authorities concerned to revisit the matter, keeping in view the provision contained in Clause-8 of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010 by passing a reasoned order within a period of 3 months. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad