Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 1264
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Pathak, J
RAM NARESH @ RAM NARESH GOND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER – Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 6835 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narayan Dutt Shukla, Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi
For the Respondents: C.S.C.
Whether the quashing of a general government order cancelling promotions applies to all similarly situated employees or is restricted to the specific petitioner of the case in which the order was challenged.
Headnote:The petitioner, originally a Lab Assistant (Class-IV employee), was promoted to the post of Driver via Government Order dated 25.01.2001. This promotion was subsequently cancelled by a Government Order dated 16.10.2019. However, in a similar case involving another employee promoted under the same order, the Court in Writ-A No. 17330 of 2019 quashed the cancellation order on 24.04.2023, leading the State to issue a subsequent order on 16.03.2026 withdrawing the cancellation. Despite this, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Lab Assistant via an order dated 15.04.2026. The primary issue is whether the benefit of the quashing of the general cancellation order dated 16.10.2019 should be extended to all similarly situated employees promoted under the Government Order dated 25.01.2001, or if it is limited only to the specific litigant in the previous case. The petitioner contends that once a general order is quashed and withdrawn, its benefits cannot be confined to a single individual, and recovery of salary after retirement for duties lawfully discharged is unsustainable. Until further orders of this Court, the recovery proceeding against the present petitioner, pertaining to the amount paid to him while he was serving on the post of Driver, shall remain stayed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the promotion of the petitioner and the subsequent quashing of the cancellation order in a similar case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument for parity in benefits following the quashing of a general order and the illegality of post-retirement salary recovery. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2026 whereby he has been reverted from the post of Driver to the post of Lab Assistant ( Class-IV employee).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Assistant (Class-IV employee). Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Driver in pursuance of the Government Order dated 25.01.2001. At a later stage, the said promotion came to be cancelled by Government Order dated 16.10.2019. It has further been stated that pursuant to the Government Order dated 25.01.2001, three employees, namely, Rana Singh, Ashok Kumar and the present petitioner, Ram Naresh, were promoted to the post of Driver. Being aggrieved by the Government Order dated 16.10.2019, one of the employees, namely, Rana Singh, approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 17330 of 2019, Rana Pratap Singh @ Rana Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others . This Court, vide order dated 24.04.2023, quashed the Government Order dated 16.10.2019 whereby the promotions of the aforesaid employees had been cancelled. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 17330 of 2019, the State Government issued another Government Order dated 16.03.2026, cancelling the earlier Government Order dated 16.10.2019. Consequently, retiral benefits were extended to Rana Singh treating him to have retired from the post of Driver.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while passing the impugned order, the authority concerned has misread and misinterpreted the judgment and order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 17330 of 2019 as well as the subsequent Government Order dated 16.03.2026 by observing that the aforesaid judgment and Government Order are applicable only to Rana Singh and not to the remaining employees who were promoted pursuant to the Government Order dated 25.01.2001.
5. He has emphasized that once the Government Order dated 16.10.2019 stood quashed by this Court and was subsequently withdrawn by the Government itself vide order dated 16.03.2026, the benefit arising therefrom could not have been confined only to Rana Singh. The petitioner, having continuously discharged duties on the post of Driver pursuant to the Government Order dated 25.01.2001, cannot now be denied retiral benefits admissible to the post of Driver and be treated as a Class-IV employee holding the post of Lab Assistant. Therefore, the impugned order of reversion/demotion is ex-facie unsustainable in the eyes of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents have no jurisdiction to effect recovery of salary after the retirement of the petitioners, inasmuch as he had discharged duties on the post of Driver pursuant to a valid Government Order and the services rendered by him on the said post cannot be treated to be illegal or unauthorized.
9. Matter requires consideration.
10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 prayed for and is granted three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
11. List the matter on 22.07.2026.
12. Until further orders of this Court, the recovery proceeding against the present petitioner, pertaining to the amount paid to him while he was serving on the post of Driver, shall remain stayed.
