Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And

refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that petitioners are not entitled for the benefits as are claimed by them and furthermore, implementation of Government Order dated 24.07.2018 pertaining to promotional pay-scale of Collection Amins for the post of Naib Tahsildar has also been suspended vide Government Order dated 19.06.2023. It is therefore submitted that since petitioners did not complete their 24 years of service within the cut off date, they are disentitled for the grant of benefits as are being sought.

5. Upon consideration of submissions by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the petitioners' case is squarely covered by judgment rendered in the case of Megh Nand and others (supra) which is as follows:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by respondent no.1. Further prayer has been made to provide and release all the benefits of Third ACP to the petitioners as per the Government Order dated 05.11.2014 with all consequential benefits.

3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that earlier certain persons of the same department had filed Writ Petition No.5763 (S/S) of 1998: Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of UP & Ors., Writ Petition No.4964 (S/S) of 1990: Uttar Pradesh Rajaswa Sangrah Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of UP & Ors. and Writ Petition No.5067 (S/S) of 1990: Virendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors., in which, the primary grievance raised was that the petitioners therein were appointed on the post of Collection Amins and were seeking benefit of promotional pay-scale on the post 3 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 of Naib Tehsildar. The said petitions were clubbed together and decided vide judgement and order dated 09.08.2000, which was challenged in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001. The said special appeal was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 29.08.2014, against which, Special Leave Petition No.5908 2015 was also filed and was dismissed on

10.04.2015, leaving the question of law left over.

4. It has further been submitted that in consequence thereof, a Review Application No.37499 of 2020 was filed in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, in which, application for condonation of delay and consequently, the review application stood rejected by means of judgment and order dated 05.05.2023. It has next been submitted that the said order has attained finality and, therefore, petitioners are entitled for the second promotional pay-scale of the post of Naib Tehsildar in terms of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildars), Rules 1944. It has also been submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the State Government vide order dated 24.11.2021 has also granted the benefit to petitioners, subject to outcome of Review Application No.37499 of 2020 in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001. It has been submitted that subsequently, petitioners have also filed Writ Petition No.14943 (S/S) of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2021. It is, therefore, submitted that since the last review application has already been rejected, the petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid benefits which have not been considered in the impugned order.

5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has refuted the contention aforesaid and has placed reliance on judgement rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No.87 of 2023: State of UP Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and submitted that the aforesaid service rules were amended vide order dated 16.08.2003 (sic 16.8.2003) and, accordingly, the State Government has taken a decision that only those persons who had completed 24 years of service as on 16.08.2023, would be entitled for the second 4 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 promotional pay-scale for the post of Tehsildar. It is, thus, submitted that the special appeal was therefore, allowed and the matter has been remanded for consideration, afresh by the court concerned.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advance on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, is evident that vide judgement and order dated 29.08.2014 passed in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the aforesaid service rules, came to the conclusion that such Collection Amins who fulfilled required qualification as mentioned in the Board's order dated

23.01.1989 were entitled for the next higher promotional pay-scale for the post of Naib Tehsildar. The Division Bench has also distinguished the judgment rendered by this Court at Allahabad Bench in the case of Avinash Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of UP & Others, Writ Petition No.34276 of 1998 on the ground that the petitioners in the special appeal were challenging order 12.04.1990, which was never challenged in the said petition. As has been indicated hereinabove, the said judgement was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2015. Whereafter, the Review Application No.37499 of 2020 was filed in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, which was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2023. It is an undisputed fact that the said order has attained finality. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 will make that petitioners' representation for grant of similar benefits has been rejected primarily on the ground that the correct facts were not placed before the courts resulting in incorrect decision it evident that the first promotional post for Collection Amin was Naib Tehsildar. Other aspects regarding implementation of various Government orders has also been resorted to.

7. From a perusal of the judgment and order rendered in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, it is, therefore, evident that the Division Bench of this Court has recorded detailed 5 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 reasons for holding that next promotional pay-scale of the post Collection Amin is that of Naib Tehsildar. The aspect that correct facts could not be placed before the Court, therefore, deserves to be rejected primarily on the ground that the said aspect has already been adjudicated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby, the special leave petition was also dismissed whereafter the review petition has also been rejected.

8. In such circumstances, it was not open respondents to have rejected representation of petitioners the ground which has already been taken and adjudicated upon firstly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in the review petition.

9. Learned State Counsel has adverted to judgement rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No.87 of 2023. However, a perusal of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 30.05.2023 would also make it evident that the Division Bench has also confirmed the aforesaid finding that prior to amendment in the service regulations on 16.08.2003, the first promotional avenue from the post of Collection Amin firstly was to the post of Naib Tehsildar, which was done away with only by means of aforesaid amendment. The judgement, thereafter, records the fact that government accordingly took a decision that those Collection Amins who had completed 24 years of service, as on 16.08.2023 (sic 16.8.2003), prior to promulgation of the aforesaid rules were entitled for the second promotion pay-scale of 8000-13,500 which was in fact, the pay-scale of the Tehsildar and the said benefit would not percolate to those persons who had completed 24 years of service after

16.08.2023 (sic 16.8.2003).

10. In the present case, it is undisputed that petitioners had completed 24 years of service prior to 16.08.2023 (sic

16.8.2003) and therefore, in terms of the various judgments and orders indicated above, petitioners were those who were entitled for the benefits, which have already been 6 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 made admissible to them by means of order dated

24.11.2021.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 09.08.2023 is hereby quashed by means of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the respondents that the benefits already credited to the petitioners vide order dated 24.11.2021 shall not be interfered with and, therefore, benefits of Third ACP in terms thereof shall also be made available.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

13. Parties to be their own costs."

6. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, from a perusal of impugned order, it is evident that petitioners were granted benefits of 2nd ACP on 27.08.2019, upon completion of 24 years of service in the pay scale of 6500- 10500 whereas petitioners are demanding 2nd ACP in the pay scale of 8000-13500 as provided to the post of Naib Tahsildar.

7. In the present case, it is not denied that petitioners had completed 24 years of service, prior to 16.08.2003 as indicated in the impugned order itself whereby it has been indicated in paragraph - 4 that petitioners have completed 24 years of service in the year 2001 itself.

8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioners are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and therefore, impugned order dated 16.06.2025 and the Government Order dated 19.06.2023 are hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to re-fix salary and arrears thereof including all other outstanding service benefits in terms of order dated 27.08.2019. Benefits already granted to the petitioners shall not be interfered with. Directions issued as indicated here-in-above shall be ensured within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is 7 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 served upon him.

9. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 2, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that petitioners are not entitled for the benefits as are claimed by them and furthermore, implementation of Government Order dated 24.07.2018 pertaining to promotional pay-scale of Collection Amins for the post of Naib Tahsildar has also been suspended vide Government Order dated 19.06.2023. It is therefore submitted that since petitioners did not complete their 24 years of service within the cut off date, they are disentitled for the grant of benefits as are being sought.

5. Upon consideration of submissions by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the petitioners' case is squarely covered by judgment rendered in the case of Megh Nand and others (supra) which is as follows:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by respondent no.1. Further prayer has been made to provide and release all the benefits of Third ACP to the petitioners as per the Government Order dated 05.11.2014 with all consequential benefits.

3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that earlier certain persons of the same department had filed Writ Petition No.5763 (S/S) of 1998: Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of UP & Ors., Writ Petition No.4964 (S/S) of 1990: Uttar Pradesh Rajaswa Sangrah Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of UP & Ors. and Writ Petition No.5067 (S/S) of 1990: Virendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors., in which, the primary grievance raised was that the petitioners therein were appointed on the post of Collection Amins and were seeking benefit of promotional pay-scale on the post 3 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 of Naib Tehsildar. The said petitions were clubbed together and decided vide judgement and order dated 09.08.2000, which was challenged in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001. The said special appeal was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 29.08.2014, against which, Special Leave Petition No.5908 2015 was also filed and was dismissed on

10.04.2015, leaving the question of law left over.

4. It has further been submitted that in consequence thereof, a Review Application No.37499 of 2020 was filed in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, in which, application for condonation of delay and consequently, the review application stood rejected by means of judgment and order dated 05.05.2023. It has next been submitted that the said order has attained finality and, therefore, petitioners are entitled for the second promotional pay-scale of the post of Naib Tehsildar in terms of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildars), Rules 1944. It has also been submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the State Government vide order dated 24.11.2021 has also granted the benefit to petitioners, subject to outcome of Review Application No.37499 of 2020 in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001. It has been submitted that subsequently, petitioners have also filed Writ Petition No.14943 (S/S) of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2021. It is, therefore, submitted that since the last review application has already been rejected, the petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid benefits which have not been considered in the impugned order.

5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has refuted the contention aforesaid and has placed reliance on judgement rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No.87 of 2023: State of UP Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and submitted that the aforesaid service rules were amended vide order dated 16.08.2003 (sic 16.8.2003) and, accordingly, the State Government has taken a decision that only those persons who had completed 24 years of service as on 16.08.2023, would be entitled for the second 4 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 promotional pay-scale for the post of Tehsildar. It is, thus, submitted that the special appeal was therefore, allowed and the matter has been remanded for consideration, afresh by the court concerned.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advance on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, is evident that vide judgement and order dated 29.08.2014 passed in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the aforesaid service rules, came to the conclusion that such Collection Amins who fulfilled required qualification as mentioned in the Board's order dated

23.01.1989 were entitled for the next higher promotional pay-scale for the post of Naib Tehsildar. The Division Bench has also distinguished the judgment rendered by this Court at Allahabad Bench in the case of Avinash Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of UP & Others, Writ Petition No.34276 of 1998 on the ground that the petitioners in the special appeal were challenging order 12.04.1990, which was never challenged in the said petition. As has been indicated hereinabove, the said judgement was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2015. Whereafter, the Review Application No.37499 of 2020 was filed in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, which was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2023. It is an undisputed fact that the said order has attained finality. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 will make that petitioners' representation for grant of similar benefits has been rejected primarily on the ground that the correct facts were not placed before the courts resulting in incorrect decision it evident that the first promotional post for Collection Amin was Naib Tehsildar. Other aspects regarding implementation of various Government orders has also been resorted to.

7. From a perusal of the judgment and order rendered in Special Appeal No.83 of 2001, it is, therefore, evident that the Division Bench of this Court has recorded detailed 5 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 reasons for holding that next promotional pay-scale of the post Collection Amin is that of Naib Tehsildar. The aspect that correct facts could not be placed before the Court, therefore, deserves to be rejected primarily on the ground that the said aspect has already been adjudicated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby, the special leave petition was also dismissed whereafter the review petition has also been rejected.

8. In such circumstances, it was not open respondents to have rejected representation of petitioners the ground which has already been taken and adjudicated upon firstly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in the review petition.

9. Learned State Counsel has adverted to judgement rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No.87 of 2023. However, a perusal of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 30.05.2023 would also make it evident that the Division Bench has also confirmed the aforesaid finding that prior to amendment in the service regulations on 16.08.2003, the first promotional avenue from the post of Collection Amin firstly was to the post of Naib Tehsildar, which was done away with only by means of aforesaid amendment. The judgement, thereafter, records the fact that government accordingly took a decision that those Collection Amins who had completed 24 years of service, as on 16.08.2023 (sic 16.8.2003), prior to promulgation of the aforesaid rules were entitled for the second promotion pay-scale of 8000-13,500 which was in fact, the pay-scale of the Tehsildar and the said benefit would not percolate to those persons who had completed 24 years of service after

16.08.2023 (sic 16.8.2003).

10. In the present case, it is undisputed that petitioners had completed 24 years of service prior to 16.08.2023 (sic

16.8.2003) and therefore, in terms of the various judgments and orders indicated above, petitioners were those who were entitled for the benefits, which have already been 6 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 made admissible to them by means of order dated

24.11.2021.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 09.08.2023 is hereby quashed by means of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the respondents that the benefits already credited to the petitioners vide order dated 24.11.2021 shall not be interfered with and, therefore, benefits of Third ACP in terms thereof shall also be made available.

12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

13. Parties to be their own costs."

6. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, from a perusal of impugned order, it is evident that petitioners were granted benefits of 2nd ACP on 27.08.2019, upon completion of 24 years of service in the pay scale of 6500- 10500 whereas petitioners are demanding 2nd ACP in the pay scale of 8000-13500 as provided to the post of Naib Tahsildar.

7. In the present case, it is not denied that petitioners had completed 24 years of service, prior to 16.08.2003 as indicated in the impugned order itself whereby it has been indicated in paragraph - 4 that petitioners have completed 24 years of service in the year 2001 itself.

8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioners are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and therefore, impugned order dated 16.06.2025 and the Government Order dated 19.06.2023 are hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to re-fix salary and arrears thereof including all other outstanding service benefits in terms of order dated 27.08.2019. Benefits already granted to the petitioners shall not be interfered with. Directions issued as indicated here-in-above shall be ensured within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is 7 WRIA No. 7830 of 2025 served upon him.

9. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 2, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench