Writ Petition No. 16351 of 2016 · Allahabad High Court · 2025

challenged the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the State Government by filing Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2021, wherein the following reliefs have been sought: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 passed by respondent no 2 as contained in Annexure No 1 to the Writ Petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to count the length of petitioner's service w.e.f.

24.06.1980 ie from the initial date of joining after taking into account services of 27 years 2 months and 15 days (ie. w.ef. 21.05.1988 to 05.08.2015) rendered by him in Rajya Krishi Prabandh Saristhan, Rehman Khera, Lucknow for the purpose of computing service & retiral benefits. (iii) issue a writ or order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make any recovery from salary or other payable dues of petitioner consequent to impugned order dated 04.11.2020."

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer in the Agriculture Department vide order dated 24.06.1980 and joined on 25.06.1980. Upon successful completion of the probationary period, he was confirmed on

25.04.1987 with effect from 01.03.1986. A seniority list of the Stenographers working in the Agriculture Department was issued on 11.06.1986 wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 41.

5. Subsequently, while serving in the Agriculture Department, vide Government Order dated 26.02.1988 a post of Director was created in the State Institute of Management of Agriculture (herein after referred to as SIMA), and on the next day by another government order 27.02.1988, 102 posts were sanctioned for the proper functioning of SIMA.

6. Pursuant to the creation of these posts, the petitioner was promoted to a newly created post of Stenographer under SIMA vide order dated 20.05.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 570–1100/-. Upon his joining SIMA, his pay was revised on

20.09.1989 to Rs. 1400–2600/- on the basis of the Pay Committee’s recommendations dated 03.06.1989 and the Government Order dated

09.08.1989. Again on 06.01.2009, the pay of the petitioner was fixed by giving benefit of the 6th Pay Commission pursuant to the government order dated

08.12.2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, placing the petitioner in the pay band of Rs. 9300–34800 with grade pay Rs. 4600/-. He was later granted grade pay of Rs. 4800/- with effect from 01.07.2008, vide Government Order dated 09.07.2012.

7. While working on the post of Personal Assistant, the seniority list of the Stenographers was issued on 22.10.2012 in which name of the petitioner was missing. Upon his representation, the Director, Agriculture Department, Uttar Pradesh, issued an order dated 20.08.2014 placing him at serial number 10A in the revised seniority list. This order acknowledged that the petitioner retained a lien in the Agriculture Department, having been appointed on 24.06.1980 and confirmed from 01.03.1986. He was relieved from SIMA on 05.08.2015 and rejoined the Directorate of Agriculture Uttar Pradesh on 06.08.2015, where he was posted as Personal Assistant on 11.08.2015.

8. Vide order dated 10.06.2016, the petitioner was promoted as Personal Assistant Grade-II in the pay band Rs. 9300–34800 with grade pay Rs. 4200/- and posted at the Government Agriculture College, Gorakhpur. He challenged this order by filing the Writ Petition No. 16351 of 2016 on the ground that he was already working as Personal Assistant Grade-I. The subsequent impugned order dated 04.11.2020, challenged in Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2021, revoked all service-related benefits accrued to the petitioner during his tenure at SIMA, citing that services rendered in an autonomous institution can not be counted for service and retiral benefits.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 denies recognition of 27 years of service at SIMA, and limits service and retirement benefits solely to his service in the Agriculture Department. The decision of the State Government violates principles of natural justice, particularly as his lien remained with the Agriculture Department during his SIMA tenure.

10. It is further submitted that pay revisions under SIMA were lawful and implemented as per the government order dated 08.01.2008, granting grade pays of Rs. 4200, Rs. 4600, and later Rs. 4800. His total service exceeds 41 years, comprising 27 years, 2 months, and 15 days at SIMA and 8 years, 10 months, and 29 days in the Agriculture Department. The impugned order dated

04.11.2020 excluded his services rendered at SIMA and ordered recovery of the “excess amount” paid from 06.08.2015 onwards.

11. It has been further submitted that employees of SIMA and the Agriculture Department are governed by identical service rules. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Sukhi Lal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (W.P. No. 7927/2005), where SIMA employees were recognized as members of the regular cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department from the date of their initial appointment.

12. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1988 to a non-cadre post under the control of SIMA, which is an autonomous body outside the administrative control of Director, Agriculture Department as provided in the letter dated 27.02.1988. He further submits that benefits such as the ACP after completion of 8, 14 and 19 years of service, were not granted by the Agriculture Department for the petitioner’s tenure at SIMA.

13. It has further been submitted that, with respect to the benefits for the period from 21.05.1988 to 05.08.2015, the petitioner is not entitled to the promotional pay scale or the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) as provided under the Government Orders dated 02.12.2000, 20.08.2004, and 05.11.2014.

14. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the services rendered in an autonomous body cannot be considered for the grant of the time pay scale, in view of the aforementioned Government Orders. However, if the post held belongs to the same cadre, is transferable, and shares a common seniority list, the service rendered therein may be considered for the time-bound pay scale. Otherwise, service rendered on different posts, even if they carry the same pay scale within the same department, shall not be taken into account.

15. It has also been further submitted that, in light of the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 and paragraph 5 of the explanation annexed to the Government Order dated 20.08.2004, the services rendered by the petitioner at the autonomous institution (SIMA) are not liable to be considered for the grant of time pay scale.

16. Learned Standing Counsel has relied on para 10 of the government order dated 05.11.2014 which provides that the previous services rendered in the Autonomous Institutions will not be taken into account for providing the benefits of ACP. Therefore, the petitioner who worked as a Stenographer in the Autonomous Institution with effect from 21.05.1988 to 05.08.2015 is not entitled to get the benefit of ACP for that period. So far as the, the parity sought by the petitioner from the judgment of Sukhi Lal (supra) is concerned, it has been submitted that Sukhi Lal and three others were appointed and posted in the institution (SIMA) by the Director, Agriculture Department, U.P. whereas the petitioner was promoted to a non-cadre post by the Director SIMA (An Autonomous Body) and therefore, he is not entitled for the parity.

17. Perused the record.

18. It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was serving under SIMA, the Director, Agriculture Department upon receiving the petitioner’s representation, issued an order dated 20.08.2014 placing him at serial no. 10A in the Seniority List of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department. Annexure No. 14 (order dated 20.08.2014) further indicates that the State Government has expressly acknowledged that, although the petitioner was working under SIMA, his seniority was fixed in the cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department at serial no. 10A in the final seniority list.

19. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 7927 (S/S) of 2005 "Sukhi Lal and three others Vs. State of U.P. and others", upon the admission of the State Government that the petitioners of that writ petition (Sukhi Lal and others) are in fact being treated to be government employees of the Agriculture Department and their names have also been either included or are in the process of being included in the Seniority List of the cadre of Stenographers of the Agriculture Department, has disposed of the writ petition finally. The operative part of the judgment is extracted below:- "Be that as it may, since it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioners are the members of regular cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department, it is hereby directed that all the petitioners will be treated as such and they will be entitled to be given all service benefits which otherwise would have been available to them, had they been treated to be the members of regular cadre of Stenographers in Agriculture Department since their initial appointment."

20. In Sukhi Lal's case, the petitioners were direct recruits under SIMA. Nevertheless, on the basis of the State Government’s own admission, they were considered employees in the regular cadre of the Agriculture Department.

21. In contrast, in the present case, the petitioner was directly appointed by the Agriculture Department and later posted at SIMA to perform Stenographic duties. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s case stands on an even better footing than that of the petitioners in Sukhi Lal's case. Once the State has acknowledged in Sukhi Lal's case that SIMA employees who were direct recruits under SIMA were to be treated as regular cadre employees of the Agriculture Department, the respondents are thus not permitted to take a different position in the petitioner’s case, particularly in view of the government order dated 20.08.2014, which clearly reflects that the petitioner retained lien and was accorded a place in the Seniority List of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department at serial no. 10A. Accordingly, the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner was working on a non-cadre post in an autonomous body and hence not entitled to the benefit of services rendered under SIMA, is misconceived.

22. Considering the admission of the State in Sukhi Lal's case that those petitioners were members of the regular cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department, and considering the judgment dated 22.03.2012 as well as the order dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure No. 14), the petitioner cannot be treated differently.

23. For these reasons, the petitioner cannot be denied the service benefits of the promotional or higher pay scales under the Government Orders dated

02.12.2000, 20.08.2004, and 05.11.2014. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel is utterly misconceived.

24. Thus, the writ of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to grant all the service benefits to the petitioner treating him as a regular cadre employee of the Agriculture Department while counting his service of 27 years under SIMA and fix the last pay drawn accordingly and release all the retiral benefits of the petitioner without any deductions along with arrears forthwith.

25. In case any recovery has already been made, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

26. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

challenged the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the State Government by filing Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2021, wherein the following reliefs have been sought: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 passed by respondent no 2 as contained in Annexure No 1 to the Writ Petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to count the length of petitioner's service w.e.f.

24.06.1980 ie from the initial date of joining after taking into account services of 27 years 2 months and 15 days (ie. w.ef. 21.05.1988 to 05.08.2015) rendered by him in Rajya Krishi Prabandh Saristhan, Rehman Khera, Lucknow for the purpose of computing service & retiral benefits. (iii) issue a writ or order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make any recovery from salary or other payable dues of petitioner consequent to impugned order dated 04.11.2020."

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer in the Agriculture Department vide order dated 24.06.1980 and joined on 25.06.1980. Upon successful completion of the probationary period, he was confirmed on

25.04.1987 with effect from 01.03.1986. A seniority list of the Stenographers working in the Agriculture Department was issued on 11.06.1986 wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 41.

5. Subsequently, while serving in the Agriculture Department, vide Government Order dated 26.02.1988 a post of Director was created in the State Institute of Management of Agriculture (herein after referred to as SIMA), and on the next day by another government order 27.02.1988, 102 posts were sanctioned for the proper functioning of SIMA.

6. Pursuant to the creation of these posts, the petitioner was promoted to a newly created post of Stenographer under SIMA vide order dated 20.05.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 570–1100/-. Upon his joining SIMA, his pay was revised on

20.09.1989 to Rs. 1400–2600/- on the basis of the Pay Committee’s recommendations dated 03.06.1989 and the Government Order dated

09.08.1989. Again on 06.01.2009, the pay of the petitioner was fixed by giving benefit of the 6th Pay Commission pursuant to the government order dated

08.12.2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, placing the petitioner in the pay band of Rs. 9300–34800 with grade pay Rs. 4600/-. He was later granted grade pay of Rs. 4800/- with effect from 01.07.2008, vide Government Order dated 09.07.2012.

7. While working on the post of Personal Assistant, the seniority list of the Stenographers was issued on 22.10.2012 in which name of the petitioner was missing. Upon his representation, the Director, Agriculture Department, Uttar Pradesh, issued an order dated 20.08.2014 placing him at serial number 10A in the revised seniority list. This order acknowledged that the petitioner retained a lien in the Agriculture Department, having been appointed on 24.06.1980 and confirmed from 01.03.1986. He was relieved from SIMA on 05.08.2015 and rejoined the Directorate of Agriculture Uttar Pradesh on 06.08.2015, where he was posted as Personal Assistant on 11.08.2015.

8. Vide order dated 10.06.2016, the petitioner was promoted as Personal Assistant Grade-II in the pay band Rs. 9300–34800 with grade pay Rs. 4200/- and posted at the Government Agriculture College, Gorakhpur. He challenged this order by filing the Writ Petition No. 16351 of 2016 on the ground that he was already working as Personal Assistant Grade-I. The subsequent impugned order dated 04.11.2020, challenged in Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2021, revoked all service-related benefits accrued to the petitioner during his tenure at SIMA, citing that services rendered in an autonomous institution can not be counted for service and retiral benefits.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 denies recognition of 27 years of service at SIMA, and limits service and retirement benefits solely to his service in the Agriculture Department. The decision of the State Government violates principles of natural justice, particularly as his lien remained with the Agriculture Department during his SIMA tenure.

10. It is further submitted that pay revisions under SIMA were lawful and implemented as per the government order dated 08.01.2008, granting grade pays of Rs. 4200, Rs. 4600, and later Rs. 4800. His total service exceeds 41 years, comprising 27 years, 2 months, and 15 days at SIMA and 8 years, 10 months, and 29 days in the Agriculture Department. The impugned order dated

04.11.2020 excluded his services rendered at SIMA and ordered recovery of the “excess amount” paid from 06.08.2015 onwards.

11. It has been further submitted that employees of SIMA and the Agriculture Department are governed by identical service rules. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Sukhi Lal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (W.P. No. 7927/2005), where SIMA employees were recognized as members of the regular cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department from the date of their initial appointment.

12. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1988 to a non-cadre post under the control of SIMA, which is an autonomous body outside the administrative control of Director, Agriculture Department as provided in the letter dated 27.02.1988. He further submits that benefits such as the ACP after completion of 8, 14 and 19 years of service, were not granted by the Agriculture Department for the petitioner’s tenure at SIMA.

13. It has further been submitted that, with respect to the benefits for the period from 21.05.1988 to 05.08.2015, the petitioner is not entitled to the promotional pay scale or the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) as provided under the Government Orders dated 02.12.2000, 20.08.2004, and 05.11.2014.

14. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the services rendered in an autonomous body cannot be considered for the grant of the time pay scale, in view of the aforementioned Government Orders. However, if the post held belongs to the same cadre, is transferable, and shares a common seniority list, the service rendered therein may be considered for the time-bound pay scale. Otherwise, service rendered on different posts, even if they carry the same pay scale within the same department, shall not be taken into account.

15. It has also been further submitted that, in light of the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 and paragraph 5 of the explanation annexed to the Government Order dated 20.08.2004, the services rendered by the petitioner at the autonomous institution (SIMA) are not liable to be considered for the grant of time pay scale.

16. Learned Standing Counsel has relied on para 10 of the government order dated 05.11.2014 which provides that the previous services rendered in the Autonomous Institutions will not be taken into account for providing the benefits of ACP. Therefore, the petitioner who worked as a Stenographer in the Autonomous Institution with effect from 21.05.1988 to 05.08.2015 is not entitled to get the benefit of ACP for that period. So far as the, the parity sought by the petitioner from the judgment of Sukhi Lal (supra) is concerned, it has been submitted that Sukhi Lal and three others were appointed and posted in the institution (SIMA) by the Director, Agriculture Department, U.P. whereas the petitioner was promoted to a non-cadre post by the Director SIMA (An Autonomous Body) and therefore, he is not entitled for the parity.

17. Perused the record.

18. It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was serving under SIMA, the Director, Agriculture Department upon receiving the petitioner’s representation, issued an order dated 20.08.2014 placing him at serial no. 10A in the Seniority List of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department. Annexure No. 14 (order dated 20.08.2014) further indicates that the State Government has expressly acknowledged that, although the petitioner was working under SIMA, his seniority was fixed in the cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department at serial no. 10A in the final seniority list.

19. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 7927 (S/S) of 2005 "Sukhi Lal and three others Vs. State of U.P. and others", upon the admission of the State Government that the petitioners of that writ petition (Sukhi Lal and others) are in fact being treated to be government employees of the Agriculture Department and their names have also been either included or are in the process of being included in the Seniority List of the cadre of Stenographers of the Agriculture Department, has disposed of the writ petition finally. The operative part of the judgment is extracted below:- "Be that as it may, since it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioners are the members of regular cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department, it is hereby directed that all the petitioners will be treated as such and they will be entitled to be given all service benefits which otherwise would have been available to them, had they been treated to be the members of regular cadre of Stenographers in Agriculture Department since their initial appointment."

20. In Sukhi Lal's case, the petitioners were direct recruits under SIMA. Nevertheless, on the basis of the State Government’s own admission, they were considered employees in the regular cadre of the Agriculture Department.

21. In contrast, in the present case, the petitioner was directly appointed by the Agriculture Department and later posted at SIMA to perform Stenographic duties. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s case stands on an even better footing than that of the petitioners in Sukhi Lal's case. Once the State has acknowledged in Sukhi Lal's case that SIMA employees who were direct recruits under SIMA were to be treated as regular cadre employees of the Agriculture Department, the respondents are thus not permitted to take a different position in the petitioner’s case, particularly in view of the government order dated 20.08.2014, which clearly reflects that the petitioner retained lien and was accorded a place in the Seniority List of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department at serial no. 10A. Accordingly, the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner was working on a non-cadre post in an autonomous body and hence not entitled to the benefit of services rendered under SIMA, is misconceived.

22. Considering the admission of the State in Sukhi Lal's case that those petitioners were members of the regular cadre of Stenographers in the Agriculture Department, and considering the judgment dated 22.03.2012 as well as the order dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure No. 14), the petitioner cannot be treated differently.

23. For these reasons, the petitioner cannot be denied the service benefits of the promotional or higher pay scales under the Government Orders dated

02.12.2000, 20.08.2004, and 05.11.2014. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel is utterly misconceived.

24. Thus, the writ of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to grant all the service benefits to the petitioner treating him as a regular cadre employee of the Agriculture Department while counting his service of 27 years under SIMA and fix the last pay drawn accordingly and release all the retiral benefits of the petitioner without any deductions along with arrears forthwith.

25. In case any recovery has already been made, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

26. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench