Allahabad High Court

SHAKEEL HASAN KHAN AND 9 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 19 January 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The order dated 04‑12‑2025 is set aside as it violates natural justice; a fresh order must be issued after giving notice and hearing.

Summary

The petitioners, appointed as Urdu Translators‑cum‑Junior Clerks, were granted a third financial upgradation on 16‑02‑2024, which was later cancelled by an order dated 04‑12‑2025 issued by the District Development Officer, Bareilly, without any show‑cause notice. The petitioners challenged the cancellation, arguing that it violated the principles of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The State contended that the order was valid and that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit, but admitted no notice was served. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, the Court held that an administrative order affecting an employee’s financial rights must be preceded by a notice and hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the 04‑12‑2025 order and directed the officer to pass a fresh order after complying with natural‑justice requirements. The writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 04‑12‑2025 cancelling the third financial upgradation is valid in the absence of a show‑cause notice and hearing.
Whether the principles of natural justice require a notice before revoking an employee's financial benefits.
Whether the impugned order can be set aside and a fresh order be directed.

Subjects

natural justice
service law
promotion
financial upgradation
show cause notice
administrative order
writ petition
Uttar Pradesh service rules

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 490 of 2026

Shakeel Hasan Khan And 9 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Yaseen, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd.
Yasin, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar
Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava has made a statement at bar that he is
possessed with the instructions and he is in a position to argue the matter
and he does not propose to file any affidavit, the writ petition be decided
on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the
parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioners who are 10 in number is that they were
appointed as Urdu Translators-cum-Junior Clerks which was re-
designated as Urdu Translators-cum-Junior Assistant. The dates of the
appointment of the writ petitioners no. 1 to 10 are 06.03.1995,
06.03.1995, 06.03.1995, 06.03.1995, 23.03.1995, 06.03.1995, 30.09.1995,
29.07.1995, 17.10.1995 and 30.03.1995. According to the writ petitioners,
their service stands regulated by Uttar Pradesh Urdu Translators-cum-
Junior Clerk Service Rules, 1994. As per the writ petitioners, on
21.02.2007, post completion of 12 years of satisfactory service Urdu
Translators-cum-Senior Clerk were sanctioned Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- in
Pay Band Rs. 5200-20200/-. the cadre of the Urdu Translators-cum-Junior
Clerk/Junior Assistant was restructured by means of Government Order
dated 30.11.2011, 11.10.2013, 20.06.2016. Thereafter, on 30.11.2011,
Urdu Translators-cum-Junior Clerk were upgraded to the post of Urdu
Translators-cum-Senior Assistant in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 Pay Band
WRIA No. 490 of 2026
2

Rs. 45,700 thereafter, Government Orders came to be issued on
11.10.2013, 20.06.2016 upgrading the Urdu Translators-cum-Senior
Assistant to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- in Pay Band of Rs. 9300-
34,100/-. By virtue of the Government Order dated 21.02.2007 certain
benefits were also accorded to the writ petitioners. Government Orders
dated 02.12.2000 was also issued to avoid stagnation. Till, 30.11.2008,
the scheme of time scale of pay continued, however, with effect from
01.12.2008 ACP came into operation which was implemented by virtue of
the order dated 04.05.2010 and thereafter, subsequent Government Orders
came to be issued on 05.11.2014, the writ petitioners were sanctioned
additional increment in the form of benefit of selection grade on
completion of 8 years of length of service in the year 2003 thereafter,
Government Order was issued on 03.07.2008 and 13.02.2013 followed by
another Government Order dated 15.05.2015. Clause 1(1) of the
Government Order dated 15.05.2015 made provisions that such Urdu
Translators-cum-Junior Clerk who had completed 10 years length of
service are eligible for sanction on Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- as the benefit
of first financial upgradation. Clause 1(2) of the Government Order dated
15.05.2015 provided the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- and the
designation of Urdu Translators-cum-Junior Assistant sanctioned on
completion of 15 years length of service would be available as the benefit
of first promotion. Similarly, clause 1(3) of the Government Order dated
15.05.2015 clarified that Urdu Translators-cum-Senior Assistant accorded
such benefit in terms of the Government Order dated 21.02.2007 were to
be entitled to second financial upgradation. That in accordance with the
aforesaid Government Orders, several benefits stood accorded to the
petitioners and for illustration the writ petitioners have cited the case of
Kamar Abbas Zaidi sanctioning the designation of Urdu Translators-cum-
Senior Assistant and the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-. According to the writ
petitioners on 02.12.2014, 12.06.2012 another Government Order was
issued by the District Development Officer, Bareilly pertaining to Kamal
Abbas Zaidi fixing grade pay of Rs. 2800/-. That a screening committee
was constituted with respect to grant of third financial upgradation and
the writ petitioners no. 1 to 8 were accorded the said benefits on different
dates with effect from 2023 vide order dated 16.02.2024, however, rest of
the writ petitioners were granted the said benefits on 30.07.2024,
WRIA No. 490 of 2026
3

however, now an order came to be passed on 04.12.2025 by District
Development Officer, Bareilly cancelling the order dated 16.02.2024
according of the third financial upgradation relying upon the letters dated
23.07.2025 and 10.08.2025.

4. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has sought to argue that the
order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the District Development Officer,
Bareilly cannot be sustained since the same is unilateral behind the back
of the writ petitioners without putting to notice the writ petitioners.
Submission is that already a screening committee stood constituted and on
its own recommendation, the writ petitioners were accorded the said
benefit. It is also submitted that it is not the case of fraud, concealment or
misrepresentation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 154.

6. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional CSC on the basis of
the instructions which he has received dated 10.01.2026 under the
signature of District Development Officer, Bareilly has submitted that the
order impugned is perfectly valid in accordance with law as the writ
petitioners were not entitled to the same benefit. However, on a pointed
query being raised to him whether the writ petitioners were put to notice,
the answer is in negative. He, thus, submits that the order be set aside
while remitting the matter back to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance
with law.

7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the
record.

8. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioners were
accorded benefit on 16.02.2024 which have been taken away unilaterally
on 04.12.2025 by District Development Officer, Bareilly. The order
impugned does not show that there happens to be issuance of a show
cause notice and consideration of the reply. In Bhagwan Shukla (supra)
the following was observed.-
WRIA No. 490 of 2026
4

"3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since
1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was

reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has

obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause

against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the

department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to

law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has

been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such

order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting

the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order

(memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be

sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the

appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and

set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order

(memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant

From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970."

9. Since the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice
and it is not forthcoming that it is a case of fraud, concealment or
misrepresentation, thus, the order cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following
terms.-

(a) the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by District Development Officer,
Bareilly, fifth respondent is set aside; (b) it is open for the District
Development Officer, Bareilly to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance
with law after putting to notice the writ petitioners and the affect parties
within a period of three months.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

12. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix
'A'.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
January 20, 2026
Rajesh

Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…