Shakeel Ahmed Khan v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

#1. Heard Sri Mohd. Imran Ansari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

#2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on 08.10.1998 on the post of Constable in U.P. Police and he was granted first ACP on

23.08.2013 with basic pay Rs.12080 in GP 1900 and he was granted second ACP with basic pay Rs.37000/- in GP 2400 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and was also granted one annual increment on 01.01.2017 and his basic pay was fixed Rs.38100/-, and one annual increment was also accorded on 01.01.2018 with basic pay of Rs.39200/- and thereafter he was granted one annual increment on 01.01.2019 and basic pay was fixed Rs.40400/- followed by another increment on 01.01.2020 while fixing basic pay was fixed Rs.41600/- followed by another annual increment on 01.01.2021, 01.01.2022,

01.01.2023, 01.01.2024 and the basic pay was fixed Rs.46800/-. The case of the writ petitioner is to the extent that he was getting gross salary of Rs.77943/- in the month of July 2025, but in the month of August 2025, gross pay of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.67,943/-. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that not only his pay-scale has been altered to his detriment, but also recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- is being sought to be made alleging excess payment to accorded for the period from 23.08.2013 to

01.01.2024. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the said exercise is unilateral without putting to the notice to petitioner, as in this regard he seeks to rely upon para-9 of the writ petition and also contends that there is no concealment, misrepresentation or fraud practice by him. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner be heard and final orders be passed to the said extent. 2 WRIA No. 15588 of 2025

#3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that whatever might be the reason, opportunity of hearing ought to have been accorded and further the writ petitioner is entitled to be visited with an order in that regard.

#4. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

#5. Apparently the allegations of the writ petitioner is that his pay-scale / salary has been reduced and recovery has been sought to be made. As per the assertions, made in the writ petition, the allegation is that the writ petitioner was not put to notice. Since no orders have been passed, thus it is for the writ petitioner to approach the competent authority to pass the order strictly in accordance with law. In Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2480 the following was observed:- "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970."

#6. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided with the following terms:- (a). The writ petitioner shall file a comprehensive representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition, certified copy of the order by

31.10.2025 and on the said motion, the third respondent/ Commissioner of Police, Varanasi shall put to notice the petitioner and while fixing a date here him and then pass an order strictly in accordance with law. 3 WRIA No. 15588 of 2025 (b) In case any recovery so made shall be subject to the final order passed therein.

#8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 17, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad