Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Abdul Moin
Uma Shanker Upadhyaya – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Finance – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Moin, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order dated 04.07.2025. The relevant extract of the order dated 04.07.2025 is reproduced below:-
"1. Heard.
2. The petitioners, all retired Teachers of Basic Shiksha Parishad having retired prior to 01.07.2001, are aggrieved by the Government Order dated 29.06.2004, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby their claim for grant of revised pay scales, so far as pay parity has been granted at par with the Central Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001, has been rejected. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the portion of the Government Order dated 03.09.2001, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, where in paragraph 2(1) it has been provided that the benefit of the earlier Government Order shall only be extended to those primary teachers and headmasters who are in service on 01.07.2001. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the pay scales as given to the Central Government teachers to the peti
The court upheld the validity of limiting pay scale benefits to current employees as a justified administrative action, emphasizing financial constraints in determining eligibility for revised pay sc....
The principle of uniformity in granting monetary benefits and prohibition of discrimination within the class.
Classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Differentiation in pension benefits based on financial constraints is constitutionally valid, affirming the balance between fiscal policy and equality in treatment under law.
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
(1) Pay Revision – Whilst fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefits cannot be questioned, what is within domain of court, is to examine impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimi....
Point of Law - Court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.
The court upheld the validity of the State's power to fix cut-off dates for pay upgrade benefits, affirming that such decisions are non-arbitrary and based on financial considerations.
Fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
