JYOTSANA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by Government Order (Demi Official Letter) dated 28.06.2010 whereby it has been clarified pursuant to a query made by Police Headquarter vide letter dated 04.05.2009 that "Incentive Allowance" (Protsahan Bhatta) should not co-relate with pay scale if a police official is getting promotional pay scale but it would be justified that it should be co-related with post of officer concerned and further action, therefore, be taken accordingly.

(2.) It is contended that aforesaid letter is a correspondence between Government and Inspector General of Police (Budget), U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad and is not a Government Order (hereinafter referred to as the "G.O.") laying down policy in respect of grant of certain benefits conferring a right upon the beneficiaries and, therefore, would have no effect of amending the G.O. dated 28.11.2007. In the alternative it is submitted that aforesaid clarification runs contrary to what actually has been said in the G.O. dated 28.11.2007 and so long as the statutory G.O. dated 28.11.2007 referable to Section 2 of Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1861") is amended with the concurrent of Finance Department, the above clarification, to the extent it runs contrary to G.O. dated 28.11.2007, is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the G.O. dated 28.11.2007 confers benefit of Incentive Allowance and it was issued in consultation with Finance Department but the present letter dated 28.06.2010 shows an opinion of a particular authority in the department, in interpretation of aforesaid G.O. reflecting opinion/view of the individual officer. He submitted that condition given in the G.O. dated 28.06.2010 is inconsistent to the provisions contained in G.O. dated 28.11.2007 and, therefore, the G.O. dated 28.06.2010 is illegal. Lastly, it is contended that, in any case, the impugned letter dated 28.06.2010 cannot operate retrospectively and, therefore, whatever has been done pursuant to G.O. dated 28.11.2007 and prior to 28.06.2010, cannot be reviewed, recalled, reduced or curtailed so as to cause civil consequences to the extent of recovery upon petitioners.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, said that the impugned order dated 28.06.2010, in fact, is a clarificatory G.O. and, therefore, is retroactive. It makes the intention of Government clear and, therefore, there is no question of any inconsistency.