Akhilesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Dairy Development, Lko. And

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.R.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present writ petition is preferred while challenging the order dated

18.04.2023 passed by opposite party no.2 on the ground that the opposite party no.2, while ignoring the provision of the Government Order dated

30.06.1993 and the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the Manager (Administration)/ Nodal Officer, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy the 2nd Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), has wrongly fixed promotional pay scale with effect from 20.10.2010; on place of

20.10.2007, on the basis of an censure entry of year 2005-06. The further prayer is made that the arrears of the 2nd promotional pay scale, with interest, may be given to the petitioner.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner joined on 20.10.1983, on the post of Assistant Field Supervisor and he kept on working to the satisfaction of his superiors and his conduct and work was above board. He submitted that on 26.07.2006, the petitioner was communicated a censure entry awarded to him and a representation was also sought in response thereof and the petitioner represented on 03.08.2006, which was rejected vide the order dated 08.05.2008. He submitted that the petitioner has taken retirement on 31.01.2016, whereas, vide order dated voluntary 2 WRIA No. 3824 of 2023

24.12.2019, the opposite party no.2 i.e., the Managing Director, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), extended the benefit of 1st and 2nd promotional pay scales to its employees after a long litigation between the employees and the PCDF Limited. He added that vide the order dated 04.11.2020, the benefit of the 2nd promotional pay scale has been fixed with respect to the present petitioner i.e., on the wrong premises.

4. He argued that the 2nd promotional pay scale has been fixed with effect from 20.10.2010, while misinterpreting the Government Order dated

30.06.1993 as the Government Order is very clear regarding the consideration of the censure entries and the clause 2(स) of Government Order dated 30.06.1993, reads as under:- "(2) (स) यिद उस अविध में, िजसके सेवािभलेख उपरो्वानुसार िवचार ्षे्ऴ में आते हो, कोई िनन्दा ्ऺिवि्ि िव्यमान हो और उस िनन्दा ्ऺिवि्ि से सम्बिन्धत घटना की ितिथ के बाद की अगले पांच वषर् की अविध में कोई अन्य ्ऺितकू लता (यथा ्ऺितकू ल ्ऺिवि्ि, दण्ड आिद) न हो तो उस िनन्दा ्ऺिवि्ि को सन्तोषजनक सेवा के मूल्यांकन हेतु िवचार में न िलया जाये अथार्त उसे नज़रंदाज़ कर िदया जाये।"

5. Referring to the aforesaid, he submits that law is very clear on this point that if there is no other censure entry within a period of five years from the date of the incident, the censure entry awarded shall be ignored for consideration of the satisfactory services. He added that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the date of the incident is 2005-06 and the censure entry has also been awarded in the said year and the 2nd promotional pay scale has been considered in the year 2010, thus on the date of consideration, there was no other censure entry, and therefore, in light of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, the same shall not be read against the petitioner, while considering the satisfactory services.

6. Further submission is that the opposite party no.2, while passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2023, has misinterpreted the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 and awarded a censure entry while computing the satisfactory services of the petitioner for the grant of 2nd promotional pay scale to the petitioner. He submitted that the order impugned is not only against the Government Order but the same is also against the settled 3 WRIA No. 3824 of 2023 proposition of law, and therefore, the order dated 18.04.2023 may be quashed and the opposite party no.2 is directed to consider the payment of the petitioner for 2nd promotional pay scale, while rightly interpreting the Government Order dated 30.06.1993.

7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the opposite parties nos.2 and 3 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the date of consideration is 20.10.2010 but the period of 24 years was completed in the year 2007 and, therefore, the date of consideration would be considered as 20.10.2007, thus, the five years could not be completed and in result thereof, the Managing Director has rightly passed the order dated

18.04.2023, therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that a dispute arose between the parties when the petitioner has been denied, the benefit of the 2nd promotional pay scale with effect from 20.10.2010 instead of 20.10.2007. When this court examines the order impugned dated 18.04.2023, it emerges that the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 has been considered. The relevant provision i.e., clause 2(स) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, provides that the censure entry would not be considered, if after awarding the same, within the period of five years, no other censure entry is awarded. The admitted fact between the parties is that no censure entry was awarded within the period of five years and rather uptill the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. The Government Order is itself provides for considering the satisfactory services of such employees, who have not been awarded the censure entry, within the period of five years after the first censure entry is awarded and extending the time to complete the five- years of period could not justify the consideration of the censure entry after which, within a period of five years, no further censure entry is awarded.

9. Consequently, the order passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. the Managing Director, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), is unsustainable in the light of the provisions of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 and the settled proposition of law thereof. 4 WRIA No. 3824 of 2023

10. Resultantly, the order impugned dated 18.04.2023 is hereby quashed.

11. The opposite party no.2 i.e. the Managing Director, Pradeshik Co- operative Dairy Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), is directed to consider the payment of the 2nd promotional pay scale to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, while strictly adhering to the provisions of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 and the settled proposition thereof, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

12. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is hereby allowed. October 14, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.R.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present writ petition is preferred while challenging the order dated

18.04.2023 passed by opposite party no.2 on the ground that the opposite party no.2, while ignoring the provision of the Government Order dated

30.06.1993 and the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the Manager (Administration)/ Nodal Officer, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy the 2nd Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), has wrongly fixed promotional pay scale with effect from 20.10.2010; on place of

20.10.2007, on the basis of an censure entry of year 2005-06. The further prayer is made that the arrears of the 2nd promotional pay scale, with interest, may be given to the petitioner.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner joined on 20.10.1983, on the post of Assistant Field Supervisor and he kept on working to the satisfaction of his superiors and his conduct and work was above board. He submitted that on 26.07.2006, the petitioner was communicated a censure entry awarded to him and a representation was also sought in response thereof and the petitioner represented on 03.08.2006, which was rejected vide the order dated 08.05.2008. He submitted that the petitioner has taken retirement on 31.01.2016, whereas, vide order dated voluntary 2 WRIA No. 3824 of 2023

24.12.2019, the opposite party no.2 i.e., the Managing Director, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), extended the benefit of 1st and 2nd promotional pay scales to its employees after a long litigation between the employees and the PCDF Limited. He added that vide the order dated 04.11.2020, the benefit of the 2nd promotional pay scale has been fixed with respect to the present petitioner i.e., on the wrong premises.

4. He argued that the 2nd promotional pay scale has been fixed with effect from 20.10.2010, while misinterpreting the Government Order dated

30.06.1993 as the Government Order is very clear regarding the consideration of the censure entries and the clause 2(स) of Government Order dated 30.06.1993, reads as under:- "(2) (स) यिद उस अविध में, िजसके सेवािभलेख उपरो्वानुसार िवचार ्षे्ऴ में आते हो, कोई िनन्दा ्ऺिवि्ि िव्यमान हो और उस िनन्दा ्ऺिवि्ि से सम्बिन्धत घटना की ितिथ के बाद की अगले पांच वषर् की अविध में कोई अन्य ्ऺितकू लता (यथा ्ऺितकू ल ्ऺिवि्ि, दण्ड आिद) न हो तो उस िनन्दा ्ऺिवि्ि को सन्तोषजनक सेवा के मूल्यांकन हेतु िवचार में न िलया जाये अथार्त उसे नज़रंदाज़ कर िदया जाये।"

5. Referring to the aforesaid, he submits that law is very clear on this point that if there is no other censure entry within a period of five years from the date of the incident, the censure entry awarded shall be ignored for consideration of the satisfactory services. He added that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the date of the incident is 2005-06 and the censure entry has also been awarded in the said year and the 2nd promotional pay scale has been considered in the year 2010, thus on the date of consideration, there was no other censure entry, and therefore, in light of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, the same shall not be read against the petitioner, while considering the satisfactory services.

6. Further submission is that the opposite party no.2, while passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2023, has misinterpreted the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 and awarded a censure entry while computing the satisfactory services of the petitioner for the grant of 2nd promotional pay scale to the petitioner. He submitted that the order impugned is not only against the Government Order but the same is also against the settled 3 WRIA No. 3824 of 2023 proposition of law, and therefore, the order dated 18.04.2023 may be quashed and the opposite party no.2 is directed to consider the payment of the petitioner for 2nd promotional pay scale, while rightly interpreting the Government Order dated 30.06.1993.

7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the opposite parties nos.2 and 3 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the date of consideration is 20.10.2010 but the period of 24 years was completed in the year 2007 and, therefore, the date of consideration would be considered as 20.10.2007, thus, the five years could not be completed and in result thereof, the Managing Director has rightly passed the order dated

18.04.2023, therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that a dispute arose between the parties when the petitioner has been denied, the benefit of the 2nd promotional pay scale with effect from 20.10.2010 instead of 20.10.2007. When this court examines the order impugned dated 18.04.2023, it emerges that the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 has been considered. The relevant provision i.e., clause 2(स) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, provides that the censure entry would not be considered, if after awarding the same, within the period of five years, no other censure entry is awarded. The admitted fact between the parties is that no censure entry was awarded within the period of five years and rather uptill the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. The Government Order is itself provides for considering the satisfactory services of such employees, who have not been awarded the censure entry, within the period of five years after the first censure entry is awarded and extending the time to complete the five- years of period could not justify the consideration of the censure entry after which, within a period of five years, no further censure entry is awarded.

9. Consequently, the order passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. the Managing Director, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), is unsustainable in the light of the provisions of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 and the settled proposition of law thereof. 4 WRIA No. 3824 of 2023

10. Resultantly, the order impugned dated 18.04.2023 is hereby quashed.

11. The opposite party no.2 i.e. the Managing Director, Pradeshik Co- operative Dairy Federation Limited (PCDF Limited), is directed to consider the payment of the 2nd promotional pay scale to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, while strictly adhering to the provisions of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 and the settled proposition thereof, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

12. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is hereby allowed. October 14, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench