JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned Standing Counsel at length and perused the record. The present writ petition has been preferred against the Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 26.6.2008. Tribunal has allowed the writ petition filed by the claimant respondent No. 1. 2. The claimant respondent No. 1 has served as Medical Officer in Indian Army from 21.8.1972 to 28.2.1978. He was released from the Army while holding the post of Captain. He joined the Medical & Health Services of the State of U.P., on 17.11.1979 as Medical Officer. However, in spite of the fact that he is an Ex-Army personnel, he was not granted benefit of seniority of Army Service for which he is entitled as per the Government order. Feeling aggrieved he filed a Claim Petition No. 79/1/90 which was allowed by a judgment and order dated 10.5.2000. While allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal has directed to re-fix the seniority within three months. The claim petition was allowed with costs quantified to Rs. 1000/-. While complying the Tribunal’s judgment the Government has revised the seniority list and the name of the claimant respondent No. 1 was placed at serial No. 1407-ka, whereas, one Dr. H.C. Narula was placed at serial No. 1488 in the amended seniority list. The opposite party No. 1 and Sri Ram Mohan Gupta (serial No. 1412), Sri Mithilesh Kumar Bajpai (serial No. 1438) and Sri Ramji Lal Saxena (serial No. 1440) were allowed promotion and the senior grade with effect from 16.12.1981 and further promotion to the post of the Joint Director with effect from 10.5.1990, by the order dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure 2 to the claim petition). Dr. H. C. Narula was promoted on the post of Joint Director with effect from 6.6.1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and further on the post of Additional Director with effect from 8.10.1993 by the order dated 28.2.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6150 and was also allowed benefit of fixation of pay and other consequential benefits. He was also paid arrears of difference of salary by the order dated 9.2.1998 and 28.2.1998 (Annexures 3 and 4 to the claim petition). Dr. V.K. Tewari whose name finds place at serial No. 2087 and Dr. R.P. Yadav who were also junior to the claimant respondent No. 1, were promoted in the senior grade of the Joint Director in the pay scale of Rs. Dr. V.K. Tewari whose name finds place at serial No. 2087 and Dr. R.P. Yadav who were also junior to the claimant respondent No. 1, were promoted in the senior grade of the Joint Director in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700 by the order dated 10.5.1990 (Annexure A-5 to the claim petition) but the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. It was alleged by the claimant opposite party No. 1 that in spite of directions of the Tribunal to promote on the next higher post, and grant higher grade after fixation of salary, the petitioners have not complied with the order. Therefore, a contempt petition No. 203 of 2001 was filed and Then he was allowed seniority with effect from the date of joining in the Army i.e., 21.8.1972 and he was promoted in the senior grade of Medical Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 by an order dated 19.1.2004. Though the pay scale of the Joint Director was revised to Rs. 14300-18300 but despite the fact that he was granted promotion on the post of the Joint Director with effect from 10.5.1990, his pay was not revised in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300. 3. It was categorically pleaded by the claimant opposite party No. 1 before the Tribunal that Dr. H. C. Narula who was junior to him, was promoted on 6.6.1987 and Additional Director on 8.10.1993, in the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6150 now retired from service. It was also pleaded by the claimant opposite party No. 1 before the Tribunal that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Writ Petition No. 43/98, Dr. Chandra Prakash and others v. State of U.P. and others directed the petitioners to prepare a fresh seniority list and allow all consequential benefits including pay, promotion etc. from the date of juniors and as such, the claimant opposite party No. 1 was also entitled to get promotion from the date of his juniors and also arrears of pay and other consequential service benefits but the same was not provided to him even in spite of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Several other persons like Dr. Girish Chandra Chaturvedi, Dr. Ram Mohan Gupta, Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Bajpai and Dr. Several other persons like Dr. Girish Chandra Chaturvedi, Dr. Ram Mohan Gupta, Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Bajpai and Dr. Ramji Lal Saxena whose names find place at serial No. 1411 ka, 1412, 1438 and 1440 in the seniority list are junior to the claimant opposite party No. 1 were promoted as Additional Director in the pay scale of Rs. 16400-20000, by the order dated 29.6.2007, ignoring the case of the claimant respondent No. 1. 4. Other facts and circumstances was placed on record before the Tribunal indicating therein how the claimant opposite party No. 1 has been dealt with by high handed and shabby manner depriving him of the service benefits without any rhyme and reason. 5. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, a plea was taken by the State that the case of the claimant opposite party No. 1 was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee but it has not recommended for the claimant’s promotion. Learned Tribunal very fairly and rightly summoned the records and after perusal of record, recorded a finding that the case of the claimant opposite party No. 1 was not recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and deferred since his character rolls/service record was incomplete. Hence, the case was deferred. On the direction of the Tribunal, the entire character rolls, entries upto the year 2006-2007 were summoned and placed before the Tribunal and after perusal of it, the Tribunal found no hurdle to promote the opposite party No. 1 to next higher post and recorded a finding that in spite of the fact that the opposite party No. 1 was deserving for promotion to next higher post and also entitled to revised pay scale of higher grade, he was in a very arbitrary manner, deprived of the service benefits. The relevant portion of the Tribunal’s judgment is reproduced as under : “Learned Presenting Officer has referred to the averments made in the written statement and has submitted that the case of the petitioner was also placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, but was not recommended. We summoned the record of DPC alongwith character roll of the petitioner which shows that the case of the petitioner was not recommended as his records (character roll) were not complete and it was on this ground that consideration of his case was deferred. We summoned the record of DPC alongwith character roll of the petitioner which shows that the case of the petitioner was not recommended as his records (character roll) were not complete and it was on this ground that consideration of his case was deferred. On our direction, the character roll entries of the petitioner upto the year 2006-2007 have been placed on the confidential record and now there is no hurdle in consideration of the case of the petitioner at par with the aforesaid doctors namely Dr. Girish Chandra Chaturvedi, Dr. Ram Mohan Gupta, Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Bajpai and Dr. Ramji Lal Saxena, who are at serial Nos. 1411-ka, 1412, 1438 and 1440 respectively in the seniority list. Undisputedly, they are juniors to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be considered for promotion and promoted with effect from 29.6.2007 when juniors to him have been promoted on the post of Additional Director, if his case is found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee.” 6. Thus, it is obvious that the opposite party No. 1 was deprived of his promotional avenues on unfounded grounds and was treated in a very high handed manner with regard to promotional avenues. Nothing was placed on record by the petitioners before the Tribunal with regard to payment of higher grade or higher revised pay scale. The Tribunal recorded finding that because of laxity on the petitioners, the opposite party No. 1 was not given the higher revised pay scale. The relevant portion from the judgment of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : “The learned counsel has next contended that despite the fact that the Government has issued order dated 4.5.2007 granting senior pay scale of Rs.1250-2050 and the replacement scale of Rs. 3000-4500 with effect from 1.1.1986 and promotional pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 of Joint Director with effect from 7.5.1990 but allegedly the petitioner has not been paid the arrears either of senior scale or of promotional pay scale. So far as the grant of senior scale or revised replacement scale is concerned, the same does not involve assumption of any new office. So there was no ground to deprive the petitioner from granting arrears of the senior pay scale with effect from the due dates. It is only the promotional pay scale which is granted with effect from assumption of officer where duties are of greater responsibility. So there was no ground to deprive the petitioner from granting arrears of the senior pay scale with effect from the due dates. It is only the promotional pay scale which is granted with effect from assumption of officer where duties are of greater responsibility. When a Government servant is deprived of promotion for no fault of his own, then he can be granted arrears of salary of promotion post. If for no fault of his own his seniority was not settled as per law well within time, then the petitioner can not be blamed. Lapse or laxity was on the part of the opposite parties. More over in the case of Dr. Sheonath Singh Chauhan and Dr. V. P. Goel the opposite party paid the full arrears under the order of the Hon’ble High Court as is evident from the order dated 10.10.2006 and 13.10.2003 (copies of which are Annexure A-12 and A-13 on record). The opposite parties are therefore directed to pay him the arrears. Further more the opposite party No. 1 had directed the opposite party No. 2 to revise the salary of the petitioner which has been done by his order No. 2180-96 dated 4.5.2007. Arrears due under this order are yet to be paid to the petitioner, which should be paid to him.” 7. From over all reading, the Tribunal’s judgment and order seems to make out a case where the claimant respondent No. 1 who is an Ex-Army personnel, was dealt with in a very arbitrary manner by the petitioners right from the beginning of his service career in the PMHS cadre, after serving in the Indian Army, as honourable serviceman. Facts on record reflect indisciplined working system, may be for extraneous considerations. Even the earlier Tribunal’s judgment was not complied with, and the claimant respondent No. 1 was compelled to file contempt petition and it was only thereafter, a partial compliance of the Tribunal’s judgment was made by the authorities. The benefit of the Tribunal’s judgment was also not given to the claimant respondent No. 1 in its totality. Continuously the juniors to the petitioners have been promoted depriving the claimant respondent No. 1 of the service benefits on unfounded grounds. The benefit of the Tribunal’s judgment was also not given to the claimant respondent No. 1 in its totality. Continuously the juniors to the petitioners have been promoted depriving the claimant respondent No. 1 of the service benefits on unfounded grounds. Attention has not been invited to any material on record which may make a case with regard to disentitlement of the claimant respondent No. 1 for promotion to the next higher post or higher pay scale. Moreover, in the present case, the Tribunal has perused the entire record and after perusal of record, the impugned judgment was delivered. There is no specific pleading which may indicate that the observations made by the Tribunal after perusing the record, is based on unfounded facts. It is notable that after 60 years of independence, the Government servants and Ex-Army personnel have been dealt with in such a shabby manner which is not expected in a civilised society governed by Rules of law. 8. We are constraint to observe that the Law Department of State Government headed by the Principal Secretary, has been giving its opinion for filing of writ petitions in the High Court without applying its mind to the limitation conferred to this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. We fail to understand how and under what circumstances, the opinion has been given for filing the writ petition without applying its mind to the Tribunal’s Judgment and orders at the costs of the public exchequer. The Law Department of the State Government should remain cautious and must apply its mind before giving opinion for filing writ petitions before the High Court. The powers conferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not appellate power. While approaching under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, whether it is State or private litigant, must make out a prima facie case for interference by the Courts and opinion for filing of writ petitions should not be given in mechanical manner without applying mind and considering the ambit and scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 9. The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is extraordinary jurisdiction. The powers conferred to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 are not the appellate power. 9. The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is extraordinary jurisdiction. The powers conferred to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 are not the appellate power. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that ordinarily, it is not open for this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings of fact, [vide AIR 1996 SC 11 , Tata Cellular v. Union of India and State of U.P. and another v. Johri Mal, AIR 2004 SC 3800 ]. Accordingly, while recommending for filing of the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, the Law Department must be aware to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Judicial Officers working in Law Department should not be influenced by persuasion of officers of the department for the purpose of filing of writ petition and, they have to give opinion independently keeping in view the settled proposition of law for the purpose of filing the writ petition. 10. In the present case, the claimant respondent No. 1 seems to have suffered a lot for no fault right from very beginning of his career. It appears that he was not treated fairly with regard to promotion and grant of higher grade. Even Tribunal’s judgments were not complied with and the claimant respondent No. 1 was forced to file the contempt petition. 11. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and order dated 26.6.2008. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 , Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India, we also find it a fit case where exemplary costs be imposed on the petitioners. It shall be open to Government of U.P. to find out who were at fault in compliance of the Tribunal’s Judgment as well as manipulating the service record of the claimant respondent No. 1 before sending it to the Departmental Promotion Committee or in non-compliance of Tribunal’s judgment and the costs so imposed, be recovered from such person. 12. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with exemplary costs which is quantified to Rs. 12. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with exemplary costs which is quantified to Rs. 1,00,000/- which may be recovered from the persons who are at fault in depriving the claimant respondent No. 1 from his service benefits. Let the costs be deposited within a period of two months from today in this Court. The claimant respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs. 75,000/- and 25,000/- shall be remitted to mediation centre of the High Court. The Registry of this Court to take follow up action. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Government of U.P. and the Principal Secretary Medical & Health Services, Government of U.P. for compliance forthwith. A copy of the judgment shall also be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law Department. Accordingly, subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. ————