High Court · 2025

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on the post of Constable on 16.04.1998. He further submits that subsequently by means of order dated 06.12.2013, the petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of his initial appointment, which according to said order is mentioned as

16.04.1998.

4. It is considering that the petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on the said post from 16.04.1998, he was granted the benefit of first ACP on 01.12.2008. It is when the respondent no. 3 reviewed the entire financial benefit given to the petitioner, they noticed that the petitioner has wrongly been granted the first ACP in 2008 while returning the said finding they have noticed as per the service book of the petitioner they have considered him on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from 08.05.2016.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the infirmity in the order has arisen on account of the fact that the respondents are treating the petitioner to be holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) since 08.05.2016 while as per order dated 06.12.2013, he is entitled to hold the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) since the date of his initial appointment which is 16.04.1998.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed great reliance on the order dated 06.12.2013, according to which, after due consideration with regard to all the persons who have been appointed on the post of Constable (Ministerial) and on the said cadre being declared dying cadre was absorbed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial). It has been provided that they shall be deemed to have been appointed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of the initial appointment and with regard to the petitioner, the said date have been mentioned to the 16.04.1998.

7. Accordingly, from the perusal of the order dated 06.12.2013 written by the Commandant II, P.A.C., Sitapur there remains no doubt that the petitioner was to be granted the benefit on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) since 16.04.1998. The respondents were directed to verify and file the response with regard to the order dated 06.12.2013 in this regard they have filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 04.12.2024 and they have not denied the order dated 06.12.013.

8. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the respondents themselves have granted the benefit to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from 16.04.1998 while the respondents are treating the petitioner as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from 08.05.2006 on the date on which he actually assumed the charge of the said post. In the short counter affidavit affidavit, or the impugned order, there is no mention of the order dated 06.12.2013.

9. It seems that the respondents have ignored the order dated

06.12.2013 where the benefit on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) was given to the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 16.04.1998 and it seems that in case the said order would have been brought to the notice of the respondents, they would have considered the fact that the petitioner has been granted all service benefits on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of which initial appointment was made. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it is for the said reason that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

10. The benefit, if any, on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) has to be granted to the petitioner duly taking into consideration the order dated 06.12.2013. The decision having been taken by the respondents ignoring the order dated

06.12.2013 is clearly illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

11. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police District Ayodhya is set aside. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order taking into account the order dated 06.12.2013.

12. Let the fresh order be passed expeditiously say within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority.

13. It is made clear that no further recovery shall be made in pursuance of the order dated 28.06.2022 and further proceedings including recovery shall follow only after the fresh order has been by the competent authority in pursuance of the direction issued by this in this order.

14. It is further made clear that in case the respondents grant benefit to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of his initial appointment then the excess amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him forthwith on passing of such order by the competent authority. Once this Court has set aside the order dated

28.06.2022, then the consequential order of refixation of the salary is also set aside, which exercise shall be taken afresh as directed here-in-above. . Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on the post of Constable on 16.04.1998. He further submits that subsequently by means of order dated 06.12.2013, the petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of his initial appointment, which according to said order is mentioned as

16.04.1998.

4. It is considering that the petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on the said post from 16.04.1998, he was granted the benefit of first ACP on 01.12.2008. It is when the respondent no. 3 reviewed the entire financial benefit given to the petitioner, they noticed that the petitioner has wrongly been granted the first ACP in 2008 while returning the said finding they have noticed as per the service book of the petitioner they have considered him on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from 08.05.2016.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the infirmity in the order has arisen on account of the fact that the respondents are treating the petitioner to be holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) since 08.05.2016 while as per order dated 06.12.2013, he is entitled to hold the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) since the date of his initial appointment which is 16.04.1998.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed great reliance on the order dated 06.12.2013, according to which, after due consideration with regard to all the persons who have been appointed on the post of Constable (Ministerial) and on the said cadre being declared dying cadre was absorbed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial). It has been provided that they shall be deemed to have been appointed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of the initial appointment and with regard to the petitioner, the said date have been mentioned to the 16.04.1998.

7. Accordingly, from the perusal of the order dated 06.12.2013 written by the Commandant II, P.A.C., Sitapur there remains no doubt that the petitioner was to be granted the benefit on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) since 16.04.1998. The respondents were directed to verify and file the response with regard to the order dated 06.12.2013 in this regard they have filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 04.12.2024 and they have not denied the order dated 06.12.013.

8. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the respondents themselves have granted the benefit to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from 16.04.1998 while the respondents are treating the petitioner as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from 08.05.2006 on the date on which he actually assumed the charge of the said post. In the short counter affidavit affidavit, or the impugned order, there is no mention of the order dated 06.12.2013.

9. It seems that the respondents have ignored the order dated

06.12.2013 where the benefit on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) was given to the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 16.04.1998 and it seems that in case the said order would have been brought to the notice of the respondents, they would have considered the fact that the petitioner has been granted all service benefits on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of which initial appointment was made. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it is for the said reason that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

10. The benefit, if any, on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) has to be granted to the petitioner duly taking into consideration the order dated 06.12.2013. The decision having been taken by the respondents ignoring the order dated

06.12.2013 is clearly illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

11. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police District Ayodhya is set aside. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order taking into account the order dated 06.12.2013.

12. Let the fresh order be passed expeditiously say within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority.

13. It is made clear that no further recovery shall be made in pursuance of the order dated 28.06.2022 and further proceedings including recovery shall follow only after the fresh order has been by the competent authority in pursuance of the direction issued by this in this order.

14. It is further made clear that in case the respondents grant benefit to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of his initial appointment then the excess amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him forthwith on passing of such order by the competent authority. Once this Court has set aside the order dated

28.06.2022, then the consequential order of refixation of the salary is also set aside, which exercise shall be taken afresh as directed here-in-above. . Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench