Reserved Avinash Chand Gupta and Ashok Kumar … v. State of U.P. and others

Judgment

1. The petitioners, Avinash Chandra Gupta and Ashok Kumar, both Accountants, who retired from the Establishment of the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, have instituted this writ petition, seeking a mandamus to disburse arrears of salary worked out in terms of their pay fixation orders dated 25.08.2023 issued by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad. They also claim interest on the belated payment of arrears of salary. The petitioners further pray that a mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears of leave encashment on account of their redetermined emoluments.

2. Avinash Chandra Gupta and Ashok Kumar were appointed as Junior Accounts Clerks vide orders dated 01.04.1986 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. Avinash Chandra Gupta retired from service on 10.06.2021, whereas Ashok Kumar, on 28.02.2022 as Accountants, upon attaining their respective ages of superannuation. These appointments were under the Department of Rural Development of the State Government. It is the petitioner’s case that Junior Accounts 2 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 Clerks in the Department of Rural Development were declared a ‘Dying Cadre’.

3. It was resolved in a meeting headed by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. held on 26.07.2021 that since by a decision of the State Government, the Junior Accounts Clerks were declared a Dying Cadre, the existing Junior Account Clerks be redesignated as Accounts Clerks, Assistant Accountants and Accountants. In order to give effect to the resolution dated 26.07.2021, the Commissioner, Rural Development issued a circular dated 27.07.2021. The District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, vide his orders dated 25.08.2023, separately made, in

relation to the first and the second petitioner, proceeded to fix their salary in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner, Rural Development. On the basis of pay fixed for the petitioners, their pensions have been revised by the Additional/Joint Director (Pension), Meerut Division, Meerut vide orders dated 03.11.2023.

4. The pensions payable to the two petitioners have been revised in accordance with the pay fixation orders dated 25.08.2023 and the pension revision orders dated 03.11.2023, and regular pension is being paid to them in the terms determined. Arrears of pension on account of revision due to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 with effect from 01.07.2021 and

01.03.2022, respectively, has also been disbursed. The short grievance of the petitioners is that on account of pay fixation done vide order dated

25.08.2023, they have not been paid the arrears of salary until the date of their respective superannuation. The petitioners say that their salaries being already revised, disbursement of arrears is the logical consequence. They also say that according to information available with them, the necessary grant for disbursement of such arrears has also been released by the Government and received at the district headquarters.

5. Notwithstanding these developments, the petitioners’ arrears of salaries have not been paid. Instead, the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has proceeded to address a memo dated 11.03.2024 to the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination, U.P., Lucknow (for 3 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 short, ‘the Director, Internal Audit’), seeking the latter’s sanction for the disbursement of arrears of the petitioner’s salary according to the fixation done. It is the petitioner’s case that under the Commissioner’s circular, it was the District Development Officer who was authorized to fix pay for the petitioners and it is precisely what the District Development Officer did vide order dated 25.08.2023. The petitioners’ pay having already been fixed, there is no justification to ask for any further sanction of the Director, Internal Audit. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that in terms of the pay fixation orders dated 25.08.2023, their salaries have been re-fixed with effect from dates prior to the year

2014. The Director, Internal Audit has been made the Appointing Authority in the year 2014, upon publication of the Uttar Pradesh Government Department Subordinate Accounts Cadre (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014 (for short ‘the Rules of 2014’), with effect from

07.11.2014. It is also the petitioners’ case that on account of their pay revision vide orders dated 25.08.2023, they are entitled to a redetermination of their leave encashment paid to them at the time of retirement, that is to say, an amount of money equivalent to their salaries for a period of 300 days.

6. It is pleaded that though the petitioners’ pension has been revised on the basis of the pay fixation done on 25.08.2023, their revised leave encashment has not been paid. They are entitled to the said sum of money also. The petitioners have represented in the matter repetitively, the details of which are pleaded in paragraph No. 20 of the writ petition.

7. Aggrieved by the respondents’ inaction, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition.

8. On 27.05.2024, when the petition came up for admission, the following order was passed : “In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, the Standing Counsel has received instructions in the matter and has handed over a copy of the same to the Court which is taken on record. On the basis of his instructions, the Standing Counsel states that a letter dated 21.5.2024 has been written by the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination 4 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 Directorate - U.P., i.e., respondent no. 3 asking the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad to send the relevant records necessary to verify the claim made by the petitioners. It transpires from the documents annexed with the writ petition that a letter dated 11.3.2024 was already sent by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad to the Director, i.e., respondent no. 3 asking for her approval on the claim of the petitioners regarding arrears of salary to be paid to them as a consequence of the order dated 25.8.2023 passed by the District Development Officer. It has been stated that the District Development Officer is the appointing authority of the Junior Accounts Clerk and the Assistant Accountants as well as the Accountants, the post from which the petitioners retired and which they held in 2023. In view of the aforesaid, there appears to be no reason for the Director to ask for further records as the said records must have been sent to the Director by the District Development Officer along with his letter dated 11.3.2024. Put up again as fresh on 4th July, 2024 on which date the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination Directorate - U.P., i.e., respondent no. 3 shall be personally present in the Court and shall file his personal affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in deciding the claim of the petitioners and for disbursal of benefits in accordance with the Government Order dated 25.8.2023.”

9. On 04.07.2024, the Director, Internal Audit appeared before the Court and filed her personal affidavit as well. On the said date, we passed the following order: “Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. In compliance with the order of 27th May, 2024, Ms. Sadhna Srivastava, Director, Internal Audit and Accounts Examination, Directorate of Internal Audit and Accounts, Lucknow is present in person. She has also filed a personal affidavit. In paragraphs Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the Director's affidavit, the stand, in substance, taken is that it is the duty of the Head of the Office to determine the employee's salary and in this case, since at the relevant time, the petitioner was functioning under the Department of Rural Development, the competent officer is the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, where the petitioner was last posted or posted at the relevant time. In this view of the matter, the explanation given by the Director is accepted and her personal presence is exempted, unless directed otherwise. Let the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad file his personal affidavit, indicating why he has not ensured revision of the petitioner's salary and payment of arrears in terms of his order dated 25.08.2023. It is clarified that in view of the affidavit filed today by the Director, the approval of the Director under whom the petitioner has last served is not at all required to be taken 5 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 by the District Development Officer for the purpose of revision of the petitioner's emoluments. This Court also takes notice Mr. Ashok Khare's contention that based on revision of emoluments already directed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad vide order dated 25.08.2023, the petitioner's pension has been determined on the basis of revised emoluments. The only issue that now survives is about arrears of salary payable to the petitioner on account of revision of his emoluments. Let the necessary affidavit be filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad on or before 12.07.2024. Adjourned to 12.07.2024. To be taken up as fresh. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad through the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad within 24 hours next.”

10. A personal affidavit dated 19.07.2024 was filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad. A rejoinder was filed to the personal affidavit filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad.

11. When the petition came up before the Court on 20.08.2024, we passed the following order : “Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Pragya Srivastava, the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has filed before this Court a truncated copy of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 without its annexure, which is a Schedule relating to the entitlement to promotion in the Accounts Cadre, based on a particular number of years of service. Prima facie, the action of filing a truncated copy of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court in an endeavour to non-suit the petitioners. This is so because it is the appended annexure to the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 that prima facie makes out the petitioners' case for entitlement to promotion to the post of an Assistant Accountant from the position of an Accounts Clerk, upon completion of 5-7 years' service in the Accounts Cadre and not seven years on the position of an Accounts Clerk. It is the Schedule which indicates that services rendered as a Junior Accounts Clerk would also reckon towards seven years of total service, on the foot of which, an employee in the Accounts Cadre would become entitled to promotion as an Assistant Accountant; and not service as an Accounts Clerk alone (Junior Accounts Clerk's service period would also be reckoned). The truncated document under reference, that has been filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad is prima facie contumacious and also constitutes perjury, again, prima facie. 6 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 Let the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad appear before this Court in person day after tomorrow at 02:00 p.m. Adjourned to 22.08.2024. To be taken up as fresh at 02:00 p.m. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad forthwith.”

12. In compliance with the order dated 20.08.2024, the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad appeared in person and filed an exemption application along with her own affidavit. She explained her position regarding the lapse in filing a truncated copy of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, consistent with her innocence. We accepted her explanation and rested the matter there. On the said date, that is to say,

22.08.2024, the parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

13. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, what we find is that the petitioners pay fixation has been done vide orders dated 25.08.2023, annexed as Annexures 4A and 4B to the writ petition. The stand of the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, in her affidavit dated

12.07.2024, which is for all purposes a wholesome counter, is that the pay fixation done vide orders dated 25.08.2023 is erroneous. It appears that much of the erroneous fixation done for the petitioners is blamed upon a clerical error and oversight by the then District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, who passed orders dated 25.08.2023, determining the petitioners’ pay from 02.04.1991. It is said that the mistake came to light when arrears of salary were demanded on the basis of the pay fixation done vide order dated 25.08.2023. The error in fixation done for the petitioners vide order dated 25.08.2023 is attributed to a misinterpretation of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, more by oversight than conscious resolve. 7 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024

15. The respondents say that according to the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, it is provided that a Junior Accounts Clerk, recruited through direct recruitment in the pay scale of Rs.354-550/-, revised to Rs.950-1500/-, would be promoted to the post of Accounts Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.430-685/-, revised to Rs.1200-2040/-, after completing five years of service as a Junior Accounts Clerk. The respondents interpret the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 in the manner that the next promotion to the post of an Assistant Accountant requires seven years' service as an Accounts Clerk, and, it is here that the District Development Officer erred in passing the orders dated 25.08.2023 and re-determining the petitioners’ pay, treating them promoted to the post of an Assistant Accountant, upon completing seven years of service as Junior Accounts Clerk. What was required, according to the respondents, was seven years' service in the cadre of Accounts Clerk by the petitioners in order to entitle them to promotion to the position of an Assistant Accountant.

16. We notice that, according to the respondents, vide Government Order dated 30.09.2003 and another Government Order dated

26.04.2006, the post of a Junior Accounts Clerk was declared dead and merged in the cadre of Accounts Clerk, re-designating the incumbent Junior Accounts Clerks as Accounts Clerks. Likewise, the post of Senior Accounts Clerks were upgraded to the post of Assistant Accountant. Upon this upgradation, according to the respondent District Development Officer, the stand in paragraph No.14 of her affidavit is that Accounts Clerks, upgraded to the post of Assistant Accountants, had their pay scales enhanced from Rs.4000-6000/- to Rs.4500-125-7000/-. Likewise, those upgraded from the post of Senior Accounts Clerks to Assistant Accountants had their pay scale enhanced from Rs.5000-8000/- to Rs.5500-175-8000/-. It is averred in paragraph No.14 of the personal affidavit filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad that the petitioners were extended the benefit of these re-designated posts and upgraded pay scale. In all this re-designation and upgradation for the petitioners, the respondent District Development Officer, points out a 8 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 clerical error in extending the benefit of the Government Order dated

11.08.1983 on the petitioners’ request letters dated 10.07.1983, while passing the orders dated 25.08.2023, relating to each of them and determining their pay in the higher pay scale from 02.04.1991.

17. From what is discernible is that the post of Junior Accounts Clerk was abolished and merged in the cadre of Accounts Clerk with a corresponding enhancement in pay scale too. There cannot be any quarrel about fixation for the petitioners made on account of abolition of cadre and merging it with the higher cadre. The only question that appears to arise is if the petitioners’ promotion to the post of Assistant Accountants was reckoned from the date that they had completed seven years service in the cadre of Accounts Clerks. The District Development Officer, Ghaziabad says that they did not, on the date with effect from which their salary was fixed in the higher cadre of Assistant Accountant. In taking this view, the District Development Officer has heavily relied upon the guidance of the Director, Internal Audit vide letters dated

02.07.2024 and 05.07.2024. The District Development Officer, Ghaziabad is not entirely wrong in saying that the Director, Internal Audit did point out this error in fixation. Out of two letters dated

02.07.2024 and 05.07.2024, addressed by the Director, Internal Audit to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, the one dated 05.07.2024 is more explicit in its terms. It reads: "पतरኋंक-आ०ले०प०/1224/7185/अधध०/सहरኋ०ले०/24, लखनऊ: ददि० 05.07.2024 सेवरኋ मे, जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄, गरኋजजियरኋबरኋदि । दवषयः - ्ቦ嘄 अकयक कशኌ मरኋरी, ्ቦ嘄 अदवनरኋक नቧद् गशኌतरኋ, से०दन० लेखरኋकरኋरी की पदियनधत/ वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-1912/38-1-2010-13 पदियनधत/ 2010, ददि0 28.05.2010 के अनशኌपरኋलन मे पदियनधत एवं वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध हयने के फलसववप एररीयरी दिेयकों के भशኌगतरኋन हेतशኌ अनशኌमयदिन ्दिरኋन दकए जिरኋने के समबदध मे। महयदिय, कृ पयरኋ उपयशኌ रक दवषयक अपने पत ददि0 11.03.2024 एवं ततसंदिभर मे पत संखयरኋ- 399, ददि0 03.07.2024 करኋ संदिभर गह्ध करीने करኋ कष करीे। 2- उ्ቤेखन嘄य ह्ቺ दक करኋसनरኋदिेक ददि0 11-08-1983 मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदि परी 05 वषर की अहरतरኋ परी लेखरኋ ललदपक, लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदि परी 07 वषर की अहरतरኋ परी 9 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी तथरኋ सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी 10 वषर की सेवरኋ परी लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी पदियनधत की वयवसथरኋ दि嘄 गय嘄 ह्ቺ तथरኋ करኋसनरኋदिेक ददि 0 04-08-1998 मे लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी पदियनधत हेतशኌ पूवर मे सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी 10 वषर की अहरतरኋ के सथरኋन परी 03 वषर दकयरኋ गयरኋ ह्ቺ, परीदतशኌ आपके सतरी से स嘄ध嘄 भत् के पदि से से अवधध की ग्धनरኋ तशኌदटिपू्धर की गय嘄 ह्ቺ। अतः अनशኌरीयध ह्ቺ दक कृ पयरኋ पत ददि 0 18-06-2024 मे उज्ቤलखत तथयों तथरኋ ररीटि यरኋधनቧकरኋ संखयरኋ-ए-7349/2024 मे मरኋ0 उ्ሴ दयरኋयरኋलय, इलरኋहरኋबरኋदि दरኋरीरኋ परኋररीत आदिेकों के समरኋदिरी मे समबबदधत करኋरमकों के ्करी्ध मे अपने सतरी से दनयमरኋनशኌसरኋरी अगेतरी करኋयरवरኋह嘄 अदवलमब समपरኋददित करीरኋने करኋ कष करीे, जजिससे मरኋ0 दयरኋयरኋलय के सममशኌख दकस嘄 दवपरी嘄त बसथधत करኋ सरኋमनरኋ न करीनरኋ पडे। भवदि嘄यरኋ ह 0 अपदठित (सरኋधनरኋ ्ቦ嘄वरኋसतव) दनदिेकक।"

18. It is, indeed, acting on the aforesaid guidance from the Director, Internal Audit, that the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has come up with a case of wrong fixation done for the petitioners vide order dated 25.08.2023.

19. Before we proceed to evaluate the contentions of parties on the question if the petitioners' salary was incorrectly fixed vide order dated

25.08.2023, we must note the stand taken before this Court by the Director, Internal Audit, by her personal affidavit dated 03.07.2024. Interestingly, this affidavit filed by the Director, Internal Audit, is by the same officer, Smt. Sadhna Srivastava, who has written the letter dated

05.07.2024, addressed to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, saying that fixation of the petitioners' salary and their promotion to the higher posts of Accounts Clerk, Assistant Accountant and Accountant, with corresponding revision of salary, is incorrect because the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has erroneously reckoned the period of eligible service for promotion being 5 years, 7 years and 10 years from the date of direct recruitment of these petitioners on the post of Junior Clerk. Before this Court, the Director, Internal Audit, has taken a completely different stand, where she does say that these periods of service on each post before the next promotion are required in terms of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, but does not come up with the case that there has been any breach of the mandatory eligibility service 10 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 period on a particular post for the petitioners before their next promotion.

20. The stand taken in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the personal affidavit filed by the Director, Internal Audit, in substance, is that determination of salary for the petitioners and payment thereof rests with the Drawing and Disbursing Officer/ Head of Office, who is the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad. Mindful of her letters issued to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad about error in fixation of salary or its revision for the petitioners, she took a kind of vacillating stand in her affidavit, where she said in one breath that it is the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, who is the Head of Office, entitled to fix the petitioners' salary, but in the next, said that in order to ensure that the petitioners' salary was determined in accordance with Rules and Government Orders, she called for records from the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad through various letters, which were not forthcoming. She, therefore, directed the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad to take the desired action on the petitioners' case as per rules and submit a report to her in this regard.

21. Since, the stand of the Director, Internal Audit, was rather confounding, she was called to Court and asked to clarify her stand. Before us, the Director, Internal Audit, stated that she has nothing to do with fixation of salary for the petitioners. This is a matter, which was necessary to notice, but does not take the question involved to a definitive answer.

22. So far as the question of promotion to the post of Assistant Accountant from that of an Accounts Clerk is concerned, a perusal of the Annexure, appended to the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, shows that against the post of Accountant in the column relating to mode of recruitment, it is indicated “by promotion from amongst such Junior Accounts Clerks, who have experience of rendering 5 years' service on the post”, which means the post of a Junior Accounts Clerk. By contrast, in the same Annexure, appended to the Government Order under 11 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 reference, for promotion to the post of Assistant Accountant, the mode and qualification prescribed is “by promotion from amongst such Accounts Clerk, who have experience of 'accounts work' for a period of 7 years or by direct recruitment”. Promotion, therefore, to the post of an Assistant Accountant does not postulate experience of 7 years on the post of an Accounts Clerk. All that is necessary is 7 years' experience of 'accounts work'. In Hindi, it is expressed as "जजिदहे लेखरኋ करኋयर करኋ 7 वषर करኋ अनशኌभव हय". By contrast, in case of promotion from a Junior Accounts Clerk to Accounts Clerk, the requisite qualification is expressed in Hindi in the following words "जजिदहे अपने पदि करኋ 5 वषर करኋ अनशኌभव हय".

23. There is a definitive and marked difference in the phraseology of the qualifications prescribed for promotion from the post of Junior Accounts Clerk to Accounts Clerk on one hand, and that for promotion from an Accounts Clerk to an Assistant Accountant. We are clearly of opinion that for promotion to the post of an Assistant Accountant, it is not imperative for a candidate to have worked on the post of an Accounts Clerk for 7 years, as the respondents say. All that is necessary is that the person concerned has experience of 7 years of doing 'accounts work', whether as a Junior Accounts Clerk or an Accounts Clerk.

24. For the next promotion, however, the second column of the schedule, annexed as Annexure to the Government Order dated

11.08.1983, indicates the mode of recruitment as promotion from amongst such Assistant Accountants, who have experience of 10 years of working on their post, which means as an Assistant Accountant. The other mode is direct recruitment. Admittedly, this period of 10 years has subsequently been relaxed to 3 years vide Government Order dated

04.08.1998, annexed as Annexure No.3 to the personal affidavit filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad dated 12.07.2024. The relevant part of the Government Order dated 04.08.1998 reads: “2- उपरीयक समसयरኋ के दनदिरኋन हेतशኌ के द् सरीकरኋरी मे लरኋगू ्यनधत की वयवसथरኋ कय दिेखते हशኌए समयक दवनቧरኋरीयपरीरኋदत रीरኋायपरኋल महयदिय दवि दवभरኋग के करኋसनरኋदिेक ददिनरኋंक 11 अगसत, 1983 ने सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी पदि से लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी ्यनधत हेतशኌ दनधरኋरररीत 12 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 से कम दिस वषर के अनशኌभव के सथरኋन परी कम से कम 3 वषर करኋ अनशኌभव रीखे जिरኋने की कम सहषर सव嘄कृ धत ्दिरኋन करीते है।" (emphasis by Court)

25. Therefore, the entire view taken by the respondents in thinking that a wrong fixation has been done for the petitioners vide order dated

25.08.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, is utterly flawed.

26. The other issue, that has been raised by the respondents, again speaking through the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, is that at Ghaziabad, there were, at the relevant time, no posts available, whereagainst the petitioners could be promoted from Junior Accounts Clerk to Accounts Clerk, Accounts Clerk to Assistant Accountant and from Assistant Accountant to Accountant. This stand is again based upon an objection, that has come from the Director, Internal Audit, vide her memo dated 18.06.2024.

27. There is another vantage of looking at the matter and either would reach the same conclusion. The respondents have raised the issue that no posts above the Junior Accounts Clerks, in the cadre of Accounts Clerk, Assistant Accountant and Accountant were available at Ghaziabad, whereagainst the petitioners could be promoted. The contention is ill- founded.

28. The Government Order dated 11.08.1983 had been issued at a point of time when the petitioners were not in service. This Government Order relates to service conditions of employees appointed in the Department of Rural Development of the State Government. On

18.05.1985, a Government Order was issued by the State Government, providing for the appointment of Junior Accounts Clerks in each Development Block for implementation of the National Rural Employment Project. The petitioners having been appointed pursuant to the Government Order dated 18.05.1985, they were not granted any promotion for a long time, as it seems, and treated different from the Junior Accounts Clerks appointed in the Department itself. A 13 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 Government Order dated 26.04.2006, annexed as Annexure No.23 to the personal affidavit of the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, dated

12.07.2024, was issued, which indicates up-gradation and re-structuring of posts in the Accounts Cadre. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 28.05.2010, granting benefits also to the petitioners, who had been appointed under the National Rural Employment Project. The Government Order dated 28.05.2010 is quoted below: "संखयरኋ- 1912 /38-1-2010-13 पदियनधत/2010 ्ेषक, ल嘄नरኋ जिौहरी嘄, सधनቧव, उिरी ्दिेक करኋसन। सेवरኋ मे, आयशኌक, गरኋमय दवकरኋस, उिरी ्दिेक, लखनऊ। गरኋमय दवकरኋस अनशኌभरኋग वि 1 लखनऊः ददिनरኋंक: 28 मई, 2010 दवषय:- रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के करኋयरኋरदवयन हेतशኌ दवकरኋस खण्ों मे करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ - 7069, ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1995 दरኋरीरኋ दनयशኌक कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों कय ददत嘄य उिरी ्दिेक दवि (वेतन आययग) 1979-1980 की संसतशኌधतयों परी करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ वे०आ०-1-1802/दिस-34 (एम) /83 ददिनरኋंक

11.08.1983 के ्रኋदवधरኋनों के अनशኌसरኋरी पदियनधत ददिये जिरኋने के समबदध मे। महयदिय, उपयशኌ रक दवषयशኌक अपने पत संखयरኋ -व嘄-264/सथरኋ0-2/2010, ददिनरኋंक 05.05.2010 करኋ कृ पयरኋ संदिभर गह्ध करीने करኋ कष करीे, जजिसके मरኋ्यम से करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-7069, ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1985 दरኋरीरኋ रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के अदतगरत दवकरኋस खण्ों मे दनयशኌक कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों कय ददत嘄य दवि (वेतन आययग) 1979- 1980 की संसतशኌधतयों के अनशኌकम मे दनगरत करኋसनरኋदिेक संखय -वे०आ०-1- 1802/दिस-34 (एम)/83, ददिनरኋंक 11.08.1983 मे ्रኋदवधरኋदनत वयवसथरኋ के अनशኌवप पदियनधत करኋ लरኋभ ददिये जिरኋने के समबदध मे दनदिरक मगቱगे गये है। 2- इस समबदध मे मशኌझे यह कहने करኋ दनदिेक हशኌआ ह्ቺ दक उिरी ्दिेक दवि (वेतन आययग) 1979-1980 की संसतशኌधतयों के अनशኌकम मे दनगरत करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ वे०आ०- 1-1802/दिस-34(एम)/83, ददिनरኋंक 11.08.1983 तथरኋ करኋंसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-727/ 38-1-2006-13 एन 0 जि嘄0/2002, ददिनरኋंक 26.04.2006 मे पदियनधत ददिये जिरኋने तथरኋ वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध के समबदध मे सपष वयवसथरኋ दि嘄 गय嘄 ह्ቺ। अतः तदशኌसरኋरी करኋसनरኋदिेक ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1985 दरኋरीरኋ रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के करኋयरኋरदवयन हेतशኌ दवकरኋस खण्ों के ललए सृजजित दकये गये पदिों के सरኋपेक दनयशኌक करኋरमकों 14 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 की पदियनधत/वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध के समबदध मे दि嘄 गय嘄 वयवसथरኋ के आधरኋरी परी अपने सतरी से दनयमरኋनशኌसरኋरी करኋयरवरኋह嘄 सशኌदनधशत करीरኋने करኋ कष करीे। भवदि嘄य, ह० अपदठित (ल嘄नरኋ जिौहरी嘄) सधनቧव।"

29. It was after this Government Order that in a meeting chaired by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, it was resolved to extend benefits of the Government Orders dated 30.09.2003 and

28.05.2010. The resolution adopted in the meeting chaired by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow dated 26.07.2021 is quoted below: ➢ “करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-7069/38-6-आई.आरी.्嘄. 0140/84, ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1985 दरኋरीरኋ रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के करኋयरኋरदवयन हेतशኌ दवकरኋस खण्ों मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के 887 पदिों करኋ सृजिन दकयरኋ गयरኋ थरኋ तथरኋ इन पदिों के दनयशኌदक अधधकरኋरी嘄 संबंधधत जिनपदिों के जजिलरኋधधकरኋरी嘄 कय नरኋदमत दकयरኋ गयरኋ ह्ቺ। ➢ करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-2982/ 38-1-2003, ददिनरኋंक 30.09.2003 दरኋरीरኋ गरኋमय दवकरኋस दवभरኋग मे वेतन सदमधत (1997-99)/ मशኌखय सधनቧव सदमधत की संसतशኌधत परी लेखरኋ संवगर के पदिों के संबंध मे ललये गये दन्धरय करኋ दकयरኋदवयन दकये जिरኋने के संबंध मे दनमनलललखत आदिेक ्दिरኋन दकये गये है- गरኋमय दवकरኋस दवभरኋग मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदिों कय मृत संवगर ो቏यदषत दकयरኋ जिरኋतरኋ ह्ቺ। कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों के पदियनधत/सेवरኋदनवृि/ अदय करኋरी्धों से ररीक हयने वरኋले पदि सवतः समरኋत मरኋने जिरኋयेगे। कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदिों परी करኋयररीत ऐसे पदिधरኋरीकों , जजिदहे समयमरኋन वेतनमरኋन की वतरमरኋन वयवसथरኋ के अध嘄न लेखरኋ ललदपक करኋ वेतनमरኋन व0 4000-8000 ्रኋत हय नቧशኌकरኋ ह्ቺ, करኋ पदिनरኋम सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी हयगरኋ। लेखरኋ ललदपक (वेतनमरኋन व0 4000-6000) के पदिों कय सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी (वेतनमरኋन व0 4000-6000) के पदिों मे संदवल嘄न करी पदिनरኋम सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी रीखरኋ जिरኋतरኋ ह्ቺ। भदविषय मे लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदिनरኋम से अब कयई दनयशኌदक / ्यनधत नहंॠ की जिरኋयेग嘄। सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी एवं लेखरኋ संवगर के अदय अध嘄नसथ पदिों हेतशኌ आयशኌक , गरኋमय दवकरኋस (दवभरኋगरኋ्यक) दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 होंगे। ➢ उिरी ्दिेक सरीकरኋरी嘄 दवभरኋग अध嘄नसथ लेखरኋ संवगर (अरीरኋजिपदतत) सेवरኋ दनयमरኋवल嘄 2014 ददिनरኋंक 07.11.2014 दरኋरीरኋ दनदिेकक, आदतररीक लेखरኋ एवं लेखरኋ परी嘄करኋ, उ०्० लखनऊ कय सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी एवं लेखरኋकरኋरी पदि करኋ दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 ो቏यदषत करीने के सरኋथ नቧयन दनयशኌदक एवं पदियनधत आददि के ललए अधधकृ त दकयरኋ गयरኋ ह्ቺ। दनदिेकक, आं तररीक लेखरኋ एवं लेखरኋ परी嘄करኋ उ 0 ् 0 लखनऊ के पत संखयरኋ - आ०से०प०-2026/7185/अधध०/सहरኋ०ले०/2017, ददिनरኋंक 26.07.2021 के सरኋथ संलग दटिट቞प्ध嘄 दरኋरीरኋ अवगत करीरኋयरኋ ह्ቺ दक दनदिेकक, आदतररीक लेखरኋ एवं लेखरኋ परी嘄करኋ उ 0 ् 0 लखनऊ सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी से दनमन पदि यथरኋ कदनष लेखरኋ ललदपक /लेखरኋ ललदपक के सेवरኋ समबदध嘄 ्करी्धों के दनसतरኋरी्ध के ललए सकम ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 नहंॠ ह्ቺ। ददिनरኋंक 30.02.2003 से पूवर कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक / लेखरኋ ललदपक पदि के दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 समबबदधत जिनपदिों के जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄 थे तथरኋ करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-2982/ 38- 1-2003-13 एन०जि嘄०/2002 ददिनरኋंक 30.09.2003 दरኋरीरኋ आयशኌक, गरኋमय दवकरኋस, उ०्० लखनऊ कय इनकरኋ दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 ो቏यदषत दकयरኋ गयरኋ। दवकरኋस खण्ों मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के सृजजित पदिों के सरኋपेक करኋयररीत कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों की ततसमय ततकरኋल嘄न दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 दरኋरीरኋ दकन करኋरी्धों से लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदि परी पदियनधत नहंॠ 15 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 की गय嘄, के समबदध मे इस दनदिेकरኋलय सतरी से कयई उिरी ददियरኋ जिरኋनरኋ समभव नहंॠ ह्ቺ , क्योंदक उक से समबबदधत दन्धरय ततकरኋल嘄न दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 (जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄 / आयशኌक, गरኋमय दवकरኋस) के सतरी से दकयरኋ गयरኋ थरኋ। ➢ करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-1912/38-1-2010-13 ददिनरኋंक 28.05.2010 के अनशኌपरኋलन दकये जिरኋने के संबंध मे इस करኋयरኋरलय के पत संखयरኋ -दि嘄-379/ सथरኋ०-2/2010, ददिनरኋंक 11.06.2010 दरኋरीरኋ समसत मशኌखय दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄/ जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄, उ०्० कय पूवर मे ह嘄 पत ्ेदषत करीते हशኌए कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक (एन०आरी०ई०प嘄०) कय करኋसनरኋदिेक मे दनदहत ्रኋदवधरኋनों के अनशኌसरኋरी ्यनत एवं वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध के दनदिरक दिे गये ह्ቺ। पदियनधत/2010, ततकम मे ददिनरኋंक 26.07.2021 कय आययजजित ब्ቺठिक मे करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ -1912/ 38-1-2010-13 पदियनधत/ 2019, ददिनरኋंक 28.05.2010 करኋ अनशኌपरኋलन दकये जिरኋने के संबंध मे पशኌनः समसत जजिलरኋधधकरኋरी嘄/ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄 / जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄, उिरी ्दिेक कय पररीपत दनगरत दकये जिरኋने करኋ दन्धरय ललयरኋ गयरኋ।"

30. The District Development Officer, Ghaziabad issued orders dated

25.08.2023 in compliance with the resolution adopted in the meeting presided over by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow dated 26.07.2021. It would be noticed that a re-structuring of the Accounts Cadre took place in terms of the Government Orders dated

30.07.2003 and 26.04.2006 with a corresponding fixation of salary for posts in the re-structured cadre. The restructured cadre did away with the posts of Junior Accounts Clerks and Accounts Clerks. The re-structuring would, therefore, not require existence of posts at Ghaziabad in the higher cadre because the existing posts of Junior Accounts Clerk and Accounts Clerk stood upgraded to Assistant Accountant.

31. The contention of the respondents that there were no posts at Ghaziabad to promote the petitioners is besides the point after the Government Order dated 30.07.2003. Apparently, the orders dated

25.08.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad in case of the first and the second petitioners, fixing their salary are not at all erroneous. It is for this reason that the petitioners received their salary until retirement in the terms fixed by the orders dated 25.08.2023 and are presently receiving their pension on the basis of salary fixed by these orders. There is, therefore, no reason for the respondents not to pay arrears of salary to the petitioners in terms of the orders dated

25.08.2023. Likewise, the petitioners would be entitled to the arrears of leave encashment on account of their redetermined emoluments. 16 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024

32. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, the Director, Internal Audit and the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad are ordered to ensure, amongst themselves, payment of arrears of salary due to the petitioners in terms of the orders dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure Nos.4-A and 4-B to the writ petition). The said respondents are also ordered to pay arrears of leave encashment on account of the petitioners’ redetermined emoluments. This order shall be carried out by each of the respondents within a period of two months of the date of its receipt.

34. There shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination, U.P., Lucknow, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the Chief Development Officer, Ghaziabad and the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad by the Registrar (Compliance). September 26, 2025 Anoop/I. Batabyal (J.J. Munir,J.) ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

relation to the first and the second petitioner, proceeded to fix their salary in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner, Rural Development. On the basis of pay fixed for the petitioners, their pensions have been revised by the Additional/Joint Director (Pension), Meerut Division, Meerut vide orders dated 03.11.2023.

4. The pensions payable to the two petitioners have been revised in accordance with the pay fixation orders dated 25.08.2023 and the pension revision orders dated 03.11.2023, and regular pension is being paid to them in the terms determined. Arrears of pension on account of revision due to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 with effect from 01.07.2021 and

01.03.2022, respectively, has also been disbursed. The short grievance of the petitioners is that on account of pay fixation done vide order dated

25.08.2023, they have not been paid the arrears of salary until the date of their respective superannuation. The petitioners say that their salaries being already revised, disbursement of arrears is the logical consequence. They also say that according to information available with them, the necessary grant for disbursement of such arrears has also been released by the Government and received at the district headquarters.

5. Notwithstanding these developments, the petitioners’ arrears of salaries have not been paid. Instead, the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has proceeded to address a memo dated 11.03.2024 to the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination, U.P., Lucknow (for 3 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 short, ‘the Director, Internal Audit’), seeking the latter’s sanction for the disbursement of arrears of the petitioner’s salary according to the fixation done. It is the petitioner’s case that under the Commissioner’s circular, it was the District Development Officer who was authorized to fix pay for the petitioners and it is precisely what the District Development Officer did vide order dated 25.08.2023. The petitioners’ pay having already been fixed, there is no justification to ask for any further sanction of the Director, Internal Audit. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that in terms of the pay fixation orders dated 25.08.2023, their salaries have been re-fixed with effect from dates prior to the year

2014. The Director, Internal Audit has been made the Appointing Authority in the year 2014, upon publication of the Uttar Pradesh Government Department Subordinate Accounts Cadre (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014 (for short ‘the Rules of 2014’), with effect from

07.11.2014. It is also the petitioners’ case that on account of their pay revision vide orders dated 25.08.2023, they are entitled to a redetermination of their leave encashment paid to them at the time of retirement, that is to say, an amount of money equivalent to their salaries for a period of 300 days.

6. It is pleaded that though the petitioners’ pension has been revised on the basis of the pay fixation done on 25.08.2023, their revised leave encashment has not been paid. They are entitled to the said sum of money also. The petitioners have represented in the matter repetitively, the details of which are pleaded in paragraph No. 20 of the writ petition.

7. Aggrieved by the respondents’ inaction, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition.

8. On 27.05.2024, when the petition came up for admission, the following order was passed : “In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, the Standing Counsel has received instructions in the matter and has handed over a copy of the same to the Court which is taken on record. On the basis of his instructions, the Standing Counsel states that a letter dated 21.5.2024 has been written by the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination 4 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 Directorate - U.P., i.e., respondent no. 3 asking the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad to send the relevant records necessary to verify the claim made by the petitioners. It transpires from the documents annexed with the writ petition that a letter dated 11.3.2024 was already sent by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad to the Director, i.e., respondent no. 3 asking for her approval on the claim of the petitioners regarding arrears of salary to be paid to them as a consequence of the order dated 25.8.2023 passed by the District Development Officer. It has been stated that the District Development Officer is the appointing authority of the Junior Accounts Clerk and the Assistant Accountants as well as the Accountants, the post from which the petitioners retired and which they held in 2023. In view of the aforesaid, there appears to be no reason for the Director to ask for further records as the said records must have been sent to the Director by the District Development Officer along with his letter dated 11.3.2024. Put up again as fresh on 4th July, 2024 on which date the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination Directorate - U.P., i.e., respondent no. 3 shall be personally present in the Court and shall file his personal affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in deciding the claim of the petitioners and for disbursal of benefits in accordance with the Government Order dated 25.8.2023.”

9. On 04.07.2024, the Director, Internal Audit appeared before the Court and filed her personal affidavit as well. On the said date, we passed the following order: “Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. In compliance with the order of 27th May, 2024, Ms. Sadhna Srivastava, Director, Internal Audit and Accounts Examination, Directorate of Internal Audit and Accounts, Lucknow is present in person. She has also filed a personal affidavit. In paragraphs Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the Director's affidavit, the stand, in substance, taken is that it is the duty of the Head of the Office to determine the employee's salary and in this case, since at the relevant time, the petitioner was functioning under the Department of Rural Development, the competent officer is the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, where the petitioner was last posted or posted at the relevant time. In this view of the matter, the explanation given by the Director is accepted and her personal presence is exempted, unless directed otherwise. Let the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad file his personal affidavit, indicating why he has not ensured revision of the petitioner's salary and payment of arrears in terms of his order dated 25.08.2023. It is clarified that in view of the affidavit filed today by the Director, the approval of the Director under whom the petitioner has last served is not at all required to be taken 5 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 by the District Development Officer for the purpose of revision of the petitioner's emoluments. This Court also takes notice Mr. Ashok Khare's contention that based on revision of emoluments already directed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad vide order dated 25.08.2023, the petitioner's pension has been determined on the basis of revised emoluments. The only issue that now survives is about arrears of salary payable to the petitioner on account of revision of his emoluments. Let the necessary affidavit be filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad on or before 12.07.2024. Adjourned to 12.07.2024. To be taken up as fresh. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad through the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad within 24 hours next.”

10. A personal affidavit dated 19.07.2024 was filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad. A rejoinder was filed to the personal affidavit filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad.

11. When the petition came up before the Court on 20.08.2024, we passed the following order : “Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Pragya Srivastava, the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has filed before this Court a truncated copy of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 without its annexure, which is a Schedule relating to the entitlement to promotion in the Accounts Cadre, based on a particular number of years of service. Prima facie, the action of filing a truncated copy of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court in an endeavour to non-suit the petitioners. This is so because it is the appended annexure to the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 that prima facie makes out the petitioners' case for entitlement to promotion to the post of an Assistant Accountant from the position of an Accounts Clerk, upon completion of 5-7 years' service in the Accounts Cadre and not seven years on the position of an Accounts Clerk. It is the Schedule which indicates that services rendered as a Junior Accounts Clerk would also reckon towards seven years of total service, on the foot of which, an employee in the Accounts Cadre would become entitled to promotion as an Assistant Accountant; and not service as an Accounts Clerk alone (Junior Accounts Clerk's service period would also be reckoned). The truncated document under reference, that has been filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad is prima facie contumacious and also constitutes perjury, again, prima facie. 6 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 Let the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad appear before this Court in person day after tomorrow at 02:00 p.m. Adjourned to 22.08.2024. To be taken up as fresh at 02:00 p.m. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad forthwith.”

12. In compliance with the order dated 20.08.2024, the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad appeared in person and filed an exemption application along with her own affidavit. She explained her position regarding the lapse in filing a truncated copy of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, consistent with her innocence. We accepted her explanation and rested the matter there. On the said date, that is to say,

22.08.2024, the parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

13. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, what we find is that the petitioners pay fixation has been done vide orders dated 25.08.2023, annexed as Annexures 4A and 4B to the writ petition. The stand of the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, in her affidavit dated

12.07.2024, which is for all purposes a wholesome counter, is that the pay fixation done vide orders dated 25.08.2023 is erroneous. It appears that much of the erroneous fixation done for the petitioners is blamed upon a clerical error and oversight by the then District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, who passed orders dated 25.08.2023, determining the petitioners’ pay from 02.04.1991. It is said that the mistake came to light when arrears of salary were demanded on the basis of the pay fixation done vide order dated 25.08.2023. The error in fixation done for the petitioners vide order dated 25.08.2023 is attributed to a misinterpretation of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, more by oversight than conscious resolve. 7 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024

15. The respondents say that according to the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, it is provided that a Junior Accounts Clerk, recruited through direct recruitment in the pay scale of Rs.354-550/-, revised to Rs.950-1500/-, would be promoted to the post of Accounts Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.430-685/-, revised to Rs.1200-2040/-, after completing five years of service as a Junior Accounts Clerk. The respondents interpret the Government Order dated 11.08.1983 in the manner that the next promotion to the post of an Assistant Accountant requires seven years' service as an Accounts Clerk, and, it is here that the District Development Officer erred in passing the orders dated 25.08.2023 and re-determining the petitioners’ pay, treating them promoted to the post of an Assistant Accountant, upon completing seven years of service as Junior Accounts Clerk. What was required, according to the respondents, was seven years' service in the cadre of Accounts Clerk by the petitioners in order to entitle them to promotion to the position of an Assistant Accountant.

16. We notice that, according to the respondents, vide Government Order dated 30.09.2003 and another Government Order dated

26.04.2006, the post of a Junior Accounts Clerk was declared dead and merged in the cadre of Accounts Clerk, re-designating the incumbent Junior Accounts Clerks as Accounts Clerks. Likewise, the post of Senior Accounts Clerks were upgraded to the post of Assistant Accountant. Upon this upgradation, according to the respondent District Development Officer, the stand in paragraph No.14 of her affidavit is that Accounts Clerks, upgraded to the post of Assistant Accountants, had their pay scales enhanced from Rs.4000-6000/- to Rs.4500-125-7000/-. Likewise, those upgraded from the post of Senior Accounts Clerks to Assistant Accountants had their pay scale enhanced from Rs.5000-8000/- to Rs.5500-175-8000/-. It is averred in paragraph No.14 of the personal affidavit filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad that the petitioners were extended the benefit of these re-designated posts and upgraded pay scale. In all this re-designation and upgradation for the petitioners, the respondent District Development Officer, points out a 8 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 clerical error in extending the benefit of the Government Order dated

11.08.1983 on the petitioners’ request letters dated 10.07.1983, while passing the orders dated 25.08.2023, relating to each of them and determining their pay in the higher pay scale from 02.04.1991.

17. From what is discernible is that the post of Junior Accounts Clerk was abolished and merged in the cadre of Accounts Clerk with a corresponding enhancement in pay scale too. There cannot be any quarrel about fixation for the petitioners made on account of abolition of cadre and merging it with the higher cadre. The only question that appears to arise is if the petitioners’ promotion to the post of Assistant Accountants was reckoned from the date that they had completed seven years service in the cadre of Accounts Clerks. The District Development Officer, Ghaziabad says that they did not, on the date with effect from which their salary was fixed in the higher cadre of Assistant Accountant. In taking this view, the District Development Officer has heavily relied upon the guidance of the Director, Internal Audit vide letters dated

02.07.2024 and 05.07.2024. The District Development Officer, Ghaziabad is not entirely wrong in saying that the Director, Internal Audit did point out this error in fixation. Out of two letters dated

02.07.2024 and 05.07.2024, addressed by the Director, Internal Audit to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, the one dated 05.07.2024 is more explicit in its terms. It reads: "पतरኋंक-आ०ले०प०/1224/7185/अधध०/सहरኋ०ले०/24, लखनऊ: ददि० 05.07.2024 सेवरኋ मे, जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄, गरኋजजियरኋबरኋदि । दवषयः - ्ቦ嘄 अकयक कशኌ मरኋरी, ्ቦ嘄 अदवनरኋक नቧद् गशኌतरኋ, से०दन० लेखरኋकरኋरी की पदियनधत/ वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-1912/38-1-2010-13 पदियनधत/ 2010, ददि0 28.05.2010 के अनशኌपरኋलन मे पदियनधत एवं वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध हयने के फलसववप एररीयरी दिेयकों के भशኌगतरኋन हेतशኌ अनशኌमयदिन ्दिरኋन दकए जिरኋने के समबदध मे। महयदिय, कृ पयरኋ उपयशኌ रक दवषयक अपने पत ददि0 11.03.2024 एवं ततसंदिभर मे पत संखयरኋ- 399, ददि0 03.07.2024 करኋ संदिभर गह्ध करीने करኋ कष करीे। 2- उ्ቤेखन嘄य ह्ቺ दक करኋसनरኋदिेक ददि0 11-08-1983 मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदि परी 05 वषर की अहरतरኋ परी लेखरኋ ललदपक, लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदि परी 07 वषर की अहरतरኋ परी 9 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी तथरኋ सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी 10 वषर की सेवरኋ परी लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी पदियनधत की वयवसथरኋ दि嘄 गय嘄 ह्ቺ तथरኋ करኋसनरኋदिेक ददि 0 04-08-1998 मे लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी पदियनधत हेतशኌ पूवर मे सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी 10 वषर की अहरतरኋ के सथरኋन परी 03 वषर दकयरኋ गयरኋ ह्ቺ, परीदतशኌ आपके सतरी से स嘄ध嘄 भत् के पदि से से अवधध की ग्धनरኋ तशኌदटिपू्धर की गय嘄 ह्ቺ। अतः अनशኌरीयध ह्ቺ दक कृ पयरኋ पत ददि 0 18-06-2024 मे उज्ቤलखत तथयों तथरኋ ररीटि यरኋधनቧकरኋ संखयरኋ-ए-7349/2024 मे मरኋ0 उ्ሴ दयरኋयरኋलय, इलरኋहरኋबरኋदि दरኋरीरኋ परኋररीत आदिेकों के समरኋदिरी मे समबबदधत करኋरमकों के ्करी्ध मे अपने सतरी से दनयमरኋनशኌसरኋरी अगेतरी करኋयरवरኋह嘄 अदवलमब समपरኋददित करीरኋने करኋ कष करीे, जजिससे मरኋ0 दयरኋयरኋलय के सममशኌख दकस嘄 दवपरी嘄त बसथधत करኋ सरኋमनरኋ न करीनरኋ पडे। भवदि嘄यरኋ ह 0 अपदठित (सरኋधनरኋ ्ቦ嘄वरኋसतव) दनदिेकक।"

18. It is, indeed, acting on the aforesaid guidance from the Director, Internal Audit, that the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has come up with a case of wrong fixation done for the petitioners vide order dated 25.08.2023.

19. Before we proceed to evaluate the contentions of parties on the question if the petitioners' salary was incorrectly fixed vide order dated

25.08.2023, we must note the stand taken before this Court by the Director, Internal Audit, by her personal affidavit dated 03.07.2024. Interestingly, this affidavit filed by the Director, Internal Audit, is by the same officer, Smt. Sadhna Srivastava, who has written the letter dated

05.07.2024, addressed to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, saying that fixation of the petitioners' salary and their promotion to the higher posts of Accounts Clerk, Assistant Accountant and Accountant, with corresponding revision of salary, is incorrect because the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad has erroneously reckoned the period of eligible service for promotion being 5 years, 7 years and 10 years from the date of direct recruitment of these petitioners on the post of Junior Clerk. Before this Court, the Director, Internal Audit, has taken a completely different stand, where she does say that these periods of service on each post before the next promotion are required in terms of the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, but does not come up with the case that there has been any breach of the mandatory eligibility service 10 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 period on a particular post for the petitioners before their next promotion.

20. The stand taken in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the personal affidavit filed by the Director, Internal Audit, in substance, is that determination of salary for the petitioners and payment thereof rests with the Drawing and Disbursing Officer/ Head of Office, who is the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad. Mindful of her letters issued to the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad about error in fixation of salary or its revision for the petitioners, she took a kind of vacillating stand in her affidavit, where she said in one breath that it is the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, who is the Head of Office, entitled to fix the petitioners' salary, but in the next, said that in order to ensure that the petitioners' salary was determined in accordance with Rules and Government Orders, she called for records from the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad through various letters, which were not forthcoming. She, therefore, directed the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad to take the desired action on the petitioners' case as per rules and submit a report to her in this regard.

21. Since, the stand of the Director, Internal Audit, was rather confounding, she was called to Court and asked to clarify her stand. Before us, the Director, Internal Audit, stated that she has nothing to do with fixation of salary for the petitioners. This is a matter, which was necessary to notice, but does not take the question involved to a definitive answer.

22. So far as the question of promotion to the post of Assistant Accountant from that of an Accounts Clerk is concerned, a perusal of the Annexure, appended to the Government Order dated 11.08.1983, shows that against the post of Accountant in the column relating to mode of recruitment, it is indicated “by promotion from amongst such Junior Accounts Clerks, who have experience of rendering 5 years' service on the post”, which means the post of a Junior Accounts Clerk. By contrast, in the same Annexure, appended to the Government Order under 11 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 reference, for promotion to the post of Assistant Accountant, the mode and qualification prescribed is “by promotion from amongst such Accounts Clerk, who have experience of 'accounts work' for a period of 7 years or by direct recruitment”. Promotion, therefore, to the post of an Assistant Accountant does not postulate experience of 7 years on the post of an Accounts Clerk. All that is necessary is 7 years' experience of 'accounts work'. In Hindi, it is expressed as "जजिदहे लेखरኋ करኋयर करኋ 7 वषर करኋ अनशኌभव हय". By contrast, in case of promotion from a Junior Accounts Clerk to Accounts Clerk, the requisite qualification is expressed in Hindi in the following words "जजिदहे अपने पदि करኋ 5 वषर करኋ अनशኌभव हय".

23. There is a definitive and marked difference in the phraseology of the qualifications prescribed for promotion from the post of Junior Accounts Clerk to Accounts Clerk on one hand, and that for promotion from an Accounts Clerk to an Assistant Accountant. We are clearly of opinion that for promotion to the post of an Assistant Accountant, it is not imperative for a candidate to have worked on the post of an Accounts Clerk for 7 years, as the respondents say. All that is necessary is that the person concerned has experience of 7 years of doing 'accounts work', whether as a Junior Accounts Clerk or an Accounts Clerk.

24. For the next promotion, however, the second column of the schedule, annexed as Annexure to the Government Order dated

11.08.1983, indicates the mode of recruitment as promotion from amongst such Assistant Accountants, who have experience of 10 years of working on their post, which means as an Assistant Accountant. The other mode is direct recruitment. Admittedly, this period of 10 years has subsequently been relaxed to 3 years vide Government Order dated

04.08.1998, annexed as Annexure No.3 to the personal affidavit filed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad dated 12.07.2024. The relevant part of the Government Order dated 04.08.1998 reads: “2- उपरीयक समसयरኋ के दनदिरኋन हेतशኌ के द् सरीकरኋरी मे लरኋगू ्यनधत की वयवसथरኋ कय दिेखते हशኌए समयक दवनቧरኋरीयपरीरኋदत रीरኋायपरኋल महयदिय दवि दवभरኋग के करኋसनरኋदिेक ददिनरኋंक 11 अगसत, 1983 ने सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी पदि से लेखरኋकरኋरी के पदि परी ्यनधत हेतशኌ दनधरኋरररीत 12 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 से कम दिस वषर के अनशኌभव के सथरኋन परी कम से कम 3 वषर करኋ अनशኌभव रीखे जिरኋने की कम सहषर सव嘄कृ धत ्दिरኋन करीते है।" (emphasis by Court)

25. Therefore, the entire view taken by the respondents in thinking that a wrong fixation has been done for the petitioners vide order dated

25.08.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, is utterly flawed.

26. The other issue, that has been raised by the respondents, again speaking through the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, is that at Ghaziabad, there were, at the relevant time, no posts available, whereagainst the petitioners could be promoted from Junior Accounts Clerk to Accounts Clerk, Accounts Clerk to Assistant Accountant and from Assistant Accountant to Accountant. This stand is again based upon an objection, that has come from the Director, Internal Audit, vide her memo dated 18.06.2024.

27. There is another vantage of looking at the matter and either would reach the same conclusion. The respondents have raised the issue that no posts above the Junior Accounts Clerks, in the cadre of Accounts Clerk, Assistant Accountant and Accountant were available at Ghaziabad, whereagainst the petitioners could be promoted. The contention is ill- founded.

28. The Government Order dated 11.08.1983 had been issued at a point of time when the petitioners were not in service. This Government Order relates to service conditions of employees appointed in the Department of Rural Development of the State Government. On

18.05.1985, a Government Order was issued by the State Government, providing for the appointment of Junior Accounts Clerks in each Development Block for implementation of the National Rural Employment Project. The petitioners having been appointed pursuant to the Government Order dated 18.05.1985, they were not granted any promotion for a long time, as it seems, and treated different from the Junior Accounts Clerks appointed in the Department itself. A 13 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 Government Order dated 26.04.2006, annexed as Annexure No.23 to the personal affidavit of the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad, dated

12.07.2024, was issued, which indicates up-gradation and re-structuring of posts in the Accounts Cadre. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 28.05.2010, granting benefits also to the petitioners, who had been appointed under the National Rural Employment Project. The Government Order dated 28.05.2010 is quoted below: "संखयरኋ- 1912 /38-1-2010-13 पदियनधत/2010 ्ेषक, ल嘄नरኋ जिौहरी嘄, सधनቧव, उिरी ्दिेक करኋसन। सेवरኋ मे, आयशኌक, गरኋमय दवकरኋस, उिरी ्दिेक, लखनऊ। गरኋमय दवकरኋस अनशኌभरኋग वि 1 लखनऊः ददिनरኋंक: 28 मई, 2010 दवषय:- रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के करኋयरኋरदवयन हेतशኌ दवकरኋस खण्ों मे करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ - 7069, ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1995 दरኋरीरኋ दनयशኌक कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों कय ददत嘄य उिरी ्दिेक दवि (वेतन आययग) 1979-1980 की संसतशኌधतयों परी करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ वे०आ०-1-1802/दिस-34 (एम) /83 ददिनरኋंक

11.08.1983 के ्रኋदवधरኋनों के अनशኌसरኋरी पदियनधत ददिये जिरኋने के समबदध मे। महयदिय, उपयशኌ रक दवषयशኌक अपने पत संखयरኋ -व嘄-264/सथरኋ0-2/2010, ददिनरኋंक 05.05.2010 करኋ कृ पयरኋ संदिभर गह्ध करीने करኋ कष करीे, जजिसके मरኋ्यम से करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-7069, ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1985 दरኋरीरኋ रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के अदतगरत दवकरኋस खण्ों मे दनयशኌक कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों कय ददत嘄य दवि (वेतन आययग) 1979- 1980 की संसतशኌधतयों के अनशኌकम मे दनगरत करኋसनरኋदिेक संखय -वे०आ०-1- 1802/दिस-34 (एम)/83, ददिनरኋंक 11.08.1983 मे ्रኋदवधरኋदनत वयवसथरኋ के अनशኌवप पदियनधत करኋ लरኋभ ददिये जिरኋने के समबदध मे दनदिरक मगቱगे गये है। 2- इस समबदध मे मशኌझे यह कहने करኋ दनदिेक हशኌआ ह्ቺ दक उिरी ्दिेक दवि (वेतन आययग) 1979-1980 की संसतशኌधतयों के अनशኌकम मे दनगरत करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ वे०आ०- 1-1802/दिस-34(एम)/83, ददिनरኋंक 11.08.1983 तथरኋ करኋंसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-727/ 38-1-2006-13 एन 0 जि嘄0/2002, ददिनरኋंक 26.04.2006 मे पदियनधत ददिये जिरኋने तथरኋ वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध के समबदध मे सपष वयवसथरኋ दि嘄 गय嘄 ह्ቺ। अतः तदशኌसरኋरी करኋसनरኋदिेक ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1985 दरኋरीरኋ रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के करኋयरኋरदवयन हेतशኌ दवकरኋस खण्ों के ललए सृजजित दकये गये पदिों के सरኋपेक दनयशኌक करኋरमकों 14 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 की पदियनधत/वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध के समबदध मे दि嘄 गय嘄 वयवसथरኋ के आधरኋरी परी अपने सतरी से दनयमरኋनशኌसरኋरी करኋयरवरኋह嘄 सशኌदनधशत करीरኋने करኋ कष करीे। भवदि嘄य, ह० अपदठित (ल嘄नरኋ जिौहरी嘄) सधनቧव।"

29. It was after this Government Order that in a meeting chaired by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, it was resolved to extend benefits of the Government Orders dated 30.09.2003 and

28.05.2010. The resolution adopted in the meeting chaired by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow dated 26.07.2021 is quoted below: ➢ “करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-7069/38-6-आई.आरी.्嘄. 0140/84, ददिनरኋंक 18.05.1985 दरኋरीरኋ रीरኋष्嘄य गरኋम嘄्ध रीयजिगरኋरी ययजिनरኋ के करኋयरኋरदवयन हेतशኌ दवकरኋस खण्ों मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के 887 पदिों करኋ सृजिन दकयरኋ गयरኋ थरኋ तथरኋ इन पदिों के दनयशኌदक अधधकरኋरी嘄 संबंधधत जिनपदिों के जजिलरኋधधकरኋरी嘄 कय नरኋदमत दकयरኋ गयरኋ ह्ቺ। ➢ करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-2982/ 38-1-2003, ददिनरኋंक 30.09.2003 दरኋरीरኋ गरኋमय दवकरኋस दवभरኋग मे वेतन सदमधत (1997-99)/ मशኌखय सधनቧव सदमधत की संसतशኌधत परी लेखरኋ संवगर के पदिों के संबंध मे ललये गये दन्धरय करኋ दकयरኋदवयन दकये जिरኋने के संबंध मे दनमनलललखत आदिेक ्दिरኋन दकये गये है- गरኋमय दवकरኋस दवभरኋग मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदिों कय मृत संवगर ो቏यदषत दकयरኋ जिरኋतरኋ ह्ቺ। कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों के पदियनधत/सेवरኋदनवृि/ अदय करኋरी्धों से ररीक हयने वरኋले पदि सवतः समरኋत मरኋने जिरኋयेगे। कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदिों परी करኋयररीत ऐसे पदिधरኋरीकों , जजिदहे समयमरኋन वेतनमरኋन की वतरमरኋन वयवसथरኋ के अध嘄न लेखरኋ ललदपक करኋ वेतनमरኋन व0 4000-8000 ्रኋत हय नቧशኌकरኋ ह्ቺ, करኋ पदिनरኋम सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी हयगरኋ। लेखरኋ ललदपक (वेतनमरኋन व0 4000-6000) के पदिों कय सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी (वेतनमरኋन व0 4000-6000) के पदिों मे संदवल嘄न करी पदिनरኋम सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी रीखरኋ जिरኋतरኋ ह्ቺ। भदविषय मे लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदिनरኋम से अब कयई दनयशኌदक / ्यनधत नहंॠ की जिरኋयेग嘄। सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी एवं लेखरኋ संवगर के अदय अध嘄नसथ पदिों हेतशኌ आयशኌक , गरኋमय दवकरኋस (दवभरኋगरኋ्यक) दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 होंगे। ➢ उिरी ्दिेक सरीकरኋरी嘄 दवभरኋग अध嘄नसथ लेखरኋ संवगर (अरीरኋजिपदतत) सेवरኋ दनयमरኋवल嘄 2014 ददिनरኋंक 07.11.2014 दरኋरीरኋ दनदिेकक, आदतररीक लेखरኋ एवं लेखरኋ परी嘄करኋ, उ०्० लखनऊ कय सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी एवं लेखरኋकरኋरी पदि करኋ दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 ो቏यदषत करीने के सरኋथ नቧयन दनयशኌदक एवं पदियनधत आददि के ललए अधधकृ त दकयरኋ गयरኋ ह्ቺ। दनदिेकक, आं तररीक लेखरኋ एवं लेखरኋ परी嘄करኋ उ 0 ् 0 लखनऊ के पत संखयरኋ - आ०से०प०-2026/7185/अधध०/सहरኋ०ले०/2017, ददिनरኋंक 26.07.2021 के सरኋथ संलग दटिट቞प्ध嘄 दरኋरीरኋ अवगत करीरኋयरኋ ह्ቺ दक दनदिेकक, आदतररीक लेखरኋ एवं लेखरኋ परी嘄करኋ उ 0 ् 0 लखनऊ सहरኋयक लेखरኋकरኋरी से दनमन पदि यथरኋ कदनष लेखरኋ ललदपक /लेखरኋ ललदपक के सेवरኋ समबदध嘄 ्करी्धों के दनसतरኋरी्ध के ललए सकम ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 नहंॠ ह्ቺ। ददिनरኋंक 30.02.2003 से पूवर कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक / लेखरኋ ललदपक पदि के दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 समबबदधत जिनपदिों के जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄 थे तथरኋ करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-2982/ 38- 1-2003-13 एन०जि嘄०/2002 ददिनरኋंक 30.09.2003 दरኋरीरኋ आयशኌक, गरኋमय दवकरኋस, उ०्० लखनऊ कय इनकरኋ दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 ो቏यदषत दकयरኋ गयरኋ। दवकरኋस खण्ों मे कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक के सृजजित पदिों के सरኋपेक करኋयररीत कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपकों की ततसमय ततकरኋल嘄न दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 दरኋरीरኋ दकन करኋरी्धों से लेखरኋ ललदपक के पदि परी पदियनधत नहंॠ 15 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024 की गय嘄, के समबदध मे इस दनदिेकरኋलय सतरी से कयई उिरी ददियरኋ जिरኋनरኋ समभव नहंॠ ह्ቺ , क्योंदक उक से समबबदधत दन्धरय ततकरኋल嘄न दनयशኌदक ्रኋधधकरኋरी嘄 (जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄 / आयशኌक, गरኋमय दवकरኋस) के सतरी से दकयरኋ गयरኋ थरኋ। ➢ करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ-1912/38-1-2010-13 ददिनरኋंक 28.05.2010 के अनशኌपरኋलन दकये जिरኋने के संबंध मे इस करኋयरኋरलय के पत संखयरኋ -दि嘄-379/ सथरኋ०-2/2010, ददिनरኋंक 11.06.2010 दरኋरीरኋ समसत मशኌखय दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄/ जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄, उ०्० कय पूवर मे ह嘄 पत ्ेदषत करीते हशኌए कदनि लेखरኋ ललदपक (एन०आरी०ई०प嘄०) कय करኋसनरኋदिेक मे दनदहत ्रኋदवधरኋनों के अनशኌसरኋरी ्यनत एवं वेतन दनधरኋररी्ध के दनदिरक दिे गये ह्ቺ। पदियनधत/2010, ततकम मे ददिनरኋंक 26.07.2021 कय आययजजित ब्ቺठिक मे करኋसनरኋदिेक संखयरኋ -1912/ 38-1-2010-13 पदियनधत/ 2019, ददिनरኋंक 28.05.2010 करኋ अनशኌपरኋलन दकये जिरኋने के संबंध मे पशኌनः समसत जजिलरኋधधकरኋरी嘄/ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄 / जजिलरኋ दवकरኋस अधधकरኋरी嘄, उिरी ्दिेक कय पररीपत दनगरत दकये जिरኋने करኋ दन्धरय ललयरኋ गयरኋ।"

30. The District Development Officer, Ghaziabad issued orders dated

25.08.2023 in compliance with the resolution adopted in the meeting presided over by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow dated 26.07.2021. It would be noticed that a re-structuring of the Accounts Cadre took place in terms of the Government Orders dated

30.07.2003 and 26.04.2006 with a corresponding fixation of salary for posts in the re-structured cadre. The restructured cadre did away with the posts of Junior Accounts Clerks and Accounts Clerks. The re-structuring would, therefore, not require existence of posts at Ghaziabad in the higher cadre because the existing posts of Junior Accounts Clerk and Accounts Clerk stood upgraded to Assistant Accountant.

31. The contention of the respondents that there were no posts at Ghaziabad to promote the petitioners is besides the point after the Government Order dated 30.07.2003. Apparently, the orders dated

25.08.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad in case of the first and the second petitioners, fixing their salary are not at all erroneous. It is for this reason that the petitioners received their salary until retirement in the terms fixed by the orders dated 25.08.2023 and are presently receiving their pension on the basis of salary fixed by these orders. There is, therefore, no reason for the respondents not to pay arrears of salary to the petitioners in terms of the orders dated

25.08.2023. Likewise, the petitioners would be entitled to the arrears of leave encashment on account of their redetermined emoluments. 16 WRIA No. 7349 of 2024

32. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, the Director, Internal Audit and the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad are ordered to ensure, amongst themselves, payment of arrears of salary due to the petitioners in terms of the orders dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure Nos.4-A and 4-B to the writ petition). The said respondents are also ordered to pay arrears of leave encashment on account of the petitioners’ redetermined emoluments. This order shall be carried out by each of the respondents within a period of two months of the date of its receipt.

34. There shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, the Director, Internal Audit & Accounts Examination, U.P., Lucknow, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the Chief Development Officer, Ghaziabad and the District Development Officer, Ghaziabad by the Registrar (Compliance). September 26, 2025 Anoop/I. Batabyal (J.J. Munir,J.) ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad