Allahabad HC: Post-Merger, State Cannot Split Pay Scales Within a Unified Cadre on Pre-Merger Status

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the State of U.P.'s appeal, holding that a 1992 government order creating two pay scales within a merged cadre violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Single Judge's direction requiring the State of Uttar Pradesh to extend the pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200/- to former Live Stock Extension Inspectors with effect from 01.01.1986, after the State's Division Bench appeal was dismissed on 22 July 2026. Writing for the bench, Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, joined by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh, held that once the State itself had merged two posts into a single cadre — retrospectively and on the finding that both categories performed identical duties — it could not subsequently prescribe separate pay scales within that cadre based solely on an employee's pre-merger designation. The court found the Government Order dated 02.04.1992 to be without rational basis and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

The respondents, Sant Lal Sonkar and eight others, were appointed between 1981 and 1986 as Live Stock Development Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department of Uttar Pradesh. By Government Order dated 04.02.1988, that post was renamed as Live Stock Extension Inspector. Their service conditions are presently governed by the U.P. Animal Husbandry Live Stock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002.

Before 1986, the Animal Husbandry Department ran two parallel posts: Live Stock Extension Officer (pay scale Rs. 470–735/-) and Live Stock Development Assistant/Extension Inspector (pay scale Rs. 400–615/-). The qualifications required and the duties involved were substantially the same across both posts. Employees in the lower-designated post had long complained about the pay gap.

To examine this grievance, the State Government constituted a Task Force Committee by Government Order dated 20.01.1987. The Committee met on 22.06.1987 and recorded that there was no material difference in the work discharged by the two categories. It recommended that the Live Stock Extension Inspectors' claim for the pay scale of Live Stock Extension Officers be placed before the Pay Commission. That recommendation was forwarded to the Secretary, Pay Commission, Uttar Pradesh on 03.09.1987.

While the matter was before the Pay Commission, the State revised pay scales across the Animal Husbandry Department by Government Order dated 19.07.1989, effective from 01.01.1986. Under the revised structure, Live Stock Extension Officers received Rs. 1200–2040/-, and Live Stock Extension Inspectors received Rs. 975–1660/-.

The Pay Commission subsequently accepted the Committee's recommendation. By Government Order dated 03.03.1990, later clarified by order dated 05.06.1991, the State decided that the two posts would constitute a single cadre with effect from 01.01.1986. Employees serving as Live Stock Extension Inspectors were also placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200–2040/- from that date, and both groups were redesignated as Live Stock Extension Officers.

So far, the respondents had obtained parity. The controversy arose next.

By Government Order dated 02.04.1992, the State modified its earlier order of 19.07.1989 to the extent that the further revised pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200/- was made available only to those who had actually been serving as Live Stock Extension Officers before 01.01.1986 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 470–735/-. The respondents, who had entered the unified cadre by virtue of the merger, remained in the Rs. 1200–2040/- scale. They challenged the Government Order dated 02.04.1992 before the Single Judge in Writ-A No. 12959 of 2012.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 24.07.2019, quashed the Government Order dated 02.04.1992 to the relevant extent, and directed the State to place the writ petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200/- with effect from 01.01.1986 along with all consequential arrears. The State filed the present Special Appeal.

This Court by order dated 22.01.2020 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. By order dated 06.02.2020, the effect and operation of the Single Judge's order was stayed, and that interim stay operated throughout the pendency of the Special Appeal.

The State's Case for the 1992 Order

Counsel for the State, Mr. Ratan Deep Mishra, argued that the Single Judge had misread the purpose of the Government Order dated 02.04.1992. He submitted that the merger of the two cadres in 1990 and 1991 produced an unintended anomaly: employees who had served as Live Stock Extension Officers for years before 01.01.1986, and who were senior in service, now drew the same pay scale as those who had entered the unified cadre only because of the retrospective merger. The 1992 order, he contended, was issued precisely to remove this anomaly by protecting the pay of the pre-existing Live Stock Extension Officers.

Mr. Mishra further argued that the Government Order dated 02.04.1992 only amended the 1989 order with respect to the Live Stock Extension Officer post and did not alter the pay scale prescribed for Live Stock Extension Inspectors. The benefit of Rs. 1350–2200/- was always intended for those who had held the higher post before 01.01.1986. Employees who entered the unified cadre through merger could not claim that benefit merely because they subsequently became part of the same cadre. He also submitted that the classification was temporary and protective, designed to safeguard senior employees, given that fresh recruitment to the Live Stock Extension Officer post had substantially ceased.

The Respondents' Answer

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the original writ petitioners, supported the Single Judge's order in full. He submitted that once the Pay Commission's recommendations were accepted and the two posts were merged into a single cadre with retrospective effect from 01.01.1986 — specifically on the finding that both categories performed the same work — there was no justification for introducing two different pay scales among members holding the same post.

Mr. Kumar contended that the source from which an employee entered the unified cadre could not be a valid basis for differential treatment once the merger had removed the earlier distinction. The Government Order dated 02.04.1992, he argued, revived the very disparity that the entire exercise — the Committee, the Pay Commission, the merger — had been designed to eliminate. He relied on the admitted position, noted by the Single Judge, that parity was in any case restored with effect from 29.11.2007 on the basis of yet another committee report, making the denial of parity for the intervening period indefensible. The 1992 order was, he submitted, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench framed the core question as whether, after the merger of the two posts into a single cadre effective from 01.01.1986, the State was justified in prescribing two different pay scales within that cadre on the basis of pre-merger status.

The bench began from undisputed facts: the two posts carried different pay scales before 1986, but the qualifications and duties were substantially similar. A Committee constituted by the State found no material difference in the functions discharged by the two categories. The Pay Commission accepted that finding. The merger was effected retrospectively. From 01.01.1986, both groups held the same post — Live Stock Extension Officer — in the same unified cadre.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S. Sivaguru v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 7 SCC 335, which it treated as directly applicable. That case concerned the merger of posts in the Health Department of Tamil Nadu, where the State had attempted to maintain two categories within a merged cadre. The Supreme Court held that upon merger, it was no longer permissible to treat the redesignated employees differently, since both categories were performing the same duties and all incumbents had formed one homogeneous cadre. The Division Bench extracted the relevant passage from S. Sivaguru, including the observation that “it was not permissible for the State to treat the redesignated Health Inspector Grade I differently from the Health Inspector Grade IA, on the basis of the initial source of recruitment.”

Applying that principle, the bench held that the classification in the Government Order dated 02.04.1992 was not grounded in any difference in qualifications, duties, responsibilities or nature of work. The only basis for the distinction was that one group had previously carried the designation of Live Stock Extension Officer before 01.01.1986. After the merger, that prior designation was extinguished. The respondents ceased to retain a separate identity as Live Stock Extension Inspectors. Their entitlement to pay had to be assessed by reference to their status in the unified cadre, not their earlier designation.

The bench also rejected the argument that the 1992 order was designed to protect seniority. While seniority may be relevant to promotion and allied service benefits, it does not furnish a rational basis for prescribing different pay scales to employees holding the same post in the same cadre. A distinction based merely on whether an employee joined before or after the retrospective merger date cannot, the bench held, justify differential pay after unification — and that position is directly contrary to the principle laid down in S. Sivaguru.

The bench then turned to the State's argument that the 1992 order only amended the 1989 order for the Live Stock Extension Officer post and did not disturb the pay of Live Stock Extension Inspectors. This too was rejected. After the merger, the respondents were not drawing salary as Live Stock Extension Inspectors; they were entitled as members of the unified cadre of Live Stock Extension Officers. The technical framing of the 1992 order did not change that legal reality.

The bench observed that the entire purpose of the exercise — the Committee, the Pay Commission reference, and the retrospective merger — was to remove the disparity between employees performing identical duties. The subsequent creation of two pay scales within the same cadre by the Government Order dated 02.04.1992 ran directly contrary to that object. The Single Judge's finding that the 1992 order was violative of Articles 14 and 16, the Division Bench held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in an intra-court appeal.

Order

The Division Bench dismissed Special Appeal No. 70 of 2020 and affirmed the judgment and order dated 24.07.2019 of the Single Judge in Writ-A No. 12959 of 2012, Sant Lal Sonkar and others v. State of U.P. and others.

The State authorities are directed to extend the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200/- to the respondents with effect from 01.01.1986 along with all consequential benefits. This exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment before the competent authority. No order as to costs was made.