JUDGMENT : 1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case. 2. Admit. 3. Heard Mr. Rishi Kant Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. The issue involved in this petition is about payment of salary to the petitioner, a part-time clerk with the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, District-Hapur, in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. It appears that the other Cane Cooperative Societies like the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Syana, Bulandshahar and the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Modinagar have been granted benefit of the 6th Pay Commission, where two of their employees are receiving salaries in accordance with pay-scales prescribed under the 6th Pay Commission. The two employees, that is to say, Sunil Kumar, Peon, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Syana, Bulandshahar and Rahul, Peon, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Modinagar were transferred, on their request, to the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. These two employees were receiving emoluments at the Cane Cooperative Societies, wherefrom they were transferred according to the 6th Pay Commission pay-scale. After transfer to the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Dhaulana, Hapur the two employees continued to receive emoluments in the pay-scale governed by the 6th Pay Commission. It was on this account that the petitioner claimed emoluments also in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission. This was so because the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur was paying its native employees salaries in accordance with the 5th Pay Commission, and the petitioner alleged discrimination. The petitioner approached this Court earlier through Writ-A No. 62640 of 2014, decided on 04.12.2014, asking for revision of his emoluments in terms of the 6th Pay Commission. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner ought, in the first instance, make a representation within two weeks to the competent authority, along with a certified copy of the order made in that case. Upon that application being moved by the petitioner, respondent no.5 to the last mentioned writ petition was ordered to consider the petitioner's claim after calling for comments in the matter from respondent nos. 6 and 7 also to that writ petition, in accordance with law, within a specified period of time. Upon that application being moved by the petitioner, respondent no.5 to the last mentioned writ petition was ordered to consider the petitioner's claim after calling for comments in the matter from respondent nos. 6 and 7 also to that writ petition, in accordance with law, within a specified period of time. The petitioner represented, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 04.12.2014, on 16.12.2014, to the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow. The Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, respondent no.1, vide his order dated 09.03.2015, has proceeded virtually to decline the petitioner's representation. It is this order which is under challenge here. The reason assigned in the order impugned appears to be that no proposal has been received for implementation of the 6th Pay Commission from the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur, whereas the other Cane Cooperative Societies, wherefrom the two employees above mentioned came on transfers have the 6th Pay Commission regime already implemented. The Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow has, therefore, proceeded to cancel the transfer orders relating to the two employees from the other Cooperative Societies. 5. So far as the petitioner's claim is concerned, it has been disposed of in terms that as and when a recommendation is received for implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, appropriate decision will be taken thereon and the petitioner's claim for grant of salary in terms of the 6th Pay Commission shall be considered, once that proposal is accepted by the Cane Commissioner for the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that a proposal has already been made for implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, by Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur on 10.02.2011 in the prescribed proforma to the Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh Ltd., Lucknow which has been recommended by the District Cane Officer and the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Meerut. The resolution of the Committee is also enclosed. It is pointed out that the impugned order has been passed, ignoring and disowning these recommendations made by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. The resolution of the Committee is also enclosed. It is pointed out that the impugned order has been passed, ignoring and disowning these recommendations made by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. The attention of the Court is also drawn towards the memo dated 20.01.2015 from the Secretary, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur, addressed to the Adhyaksh, Zila Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Ghaziabad with copies endorsed inter alia to the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Meerut and the Joint Cane Commissioner/Secretary, Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Lucknow. It is further pointed out that the memo dated 20.01.2015 shows that the Secretary of the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. has clearly informed through the aforesaid memo that complete papers in the prescribed format, recommending implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, have been sent to the Managing Director, U.P. Cane Cooperative Union Federation Ltd., Lucknow through a memo dated 13.01.2015, by registered post and also by e-mail. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the impugned order dated 09.03.2015 is certainly one made after the memo dated 20.01.2015 was issued by Secretary, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur and also the proposal dated 10.02.2015, earlier submitted in the prescribed format. It is, therefore, submitted that impugned order is vitiated on account of ignorance of material on record. 7. Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents disputes the petitioner’s claim. He submits that the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur is in dire financial straits and does not have the necessary wherewithal to shoulder the financial burden that would entail if the Sixth Pay Commission were implemented. He submits that the liability to implement a particular Pay Commission is subject to the concerned Sahkari Samiti’s financial health. There is no scope for aid by the State Government. In order to buttress his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court, rendered in Jay Narayan Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ – A No.22820 of 2011, decided on 26.02.2020. In that case, the employee’s claim was for payment of post retiral benefits based on the recommendations made by the Fifth Pay Commission. In order to buttress his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court, rendered in Jay Narayan Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ – A No.22820 of 2011, decided on 26.02.2020. In that case, the employee’s claim was for payment of post retiral benefits based on the recommendations made by the Fifth Pay Commission. In the context of that claim, this Court held: “From a perusal of material placed on the record, it appears that the Cane Commissioner on 30 June 2005 passed an order providing that although arrears for the period of 01 January 1996 to 31 March 2003 would not be payable pursuant to the recommendations made by the Fifth Pay Commission, in respect of those employees who had retired between 01 January 1996 to 31 March 2003, their pay scales as well as gratuity would be revised and reworked notionally and in light of the recommendations made by the Pay Commission. The petitioner here retired in 2000. It is based on this circular of the Cane Commissioner that the claim rests. The petitioner here retired in 2000. It is based on this circular of the Cane Commissioner that the claim rests. The respondents however while considering that claim and passing the order impugned have referred to a subsequent circular of the Cane Commissioner of 30 September 2005 and have held thus:- ^^xUuk vk;qDr ,oa fuca/kd] lgdkjh xUuk lfefr;k mŒizŒ ds ifji= la[;k 414@lhŒ@lfefr fnukad 30-9-2005 }kjk iape osrueku dh lqfo/kk vuqeU; djk;s tkus gsrq fuEufyf[kr ekin.M fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s gS& 1& 1-1-96 ls 31-3-2003 dh vof/k dk dksbZ osru ,fj;j deZpkjh dks ns; ugha gksxkA 2& u;s la'kksf/kr osrueku ykxw djus ij tks vfrfjDr O;; Hkkj iM+sxk mldk ogu xUuk lfefr;k vius lalk/kuksa ls djsxhA 3& xUuk ewY; o vU; enks dk /ku fdlh Hkh n'kk esa O;kofrZr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 4& xUuk lfefr;ksa dks u;s osrueku ykxw djus gsrq dksbZ jktdh; lgk;rk vuqekU; ugha gksxhA 5& xUuk lfefr;ksa dks iape osrueku ykwxw djus gsrq vius lapkyd e.MYk ds le{k foŸkh; fLFkfr dk mYys[k djrs gq, /;ku esa j[krs gq, izLrko ikfjr djk;sxhA 6& xUUkk ewY;] ewY; O;korZu djus okyh lfefr;ksa dks iape osru dh lqfo/kk vuqeU; ugh gksxhA iape osrueku gsrq xUuk vk;qDr ,oa fuca/kd ds ifji= la[;k 110@lhŒ@lfefr fnukad %&20-5-2003 ,oa 414@lhŒ fnukad 30-9-2005 esa fu/kkZfjr mDr 'krksZ ds foŸkh; fLFkfr ds vuqlkj xUuk lfefr lrqayu i= o"kZ 1996&97 ds vuqlkj :i;k 2]57]2]355-50 dh gkfu gS lfefr ds vU; lLaFkkvks dh nsunkjh 89]35]300-00 ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dh nsunkjh :Œ1]22]10]04-00 gSA lfefr foxr nl o"kksZ dh lIykbZ 10-00 yk[k fDoaVy ls ?kVdj 3-82 yk[k fDoaVy dh gks x;h gSA O;kofrZr xUuk ewY; /kujkf'k lfefr }kjk d`"kdks dks 'kDdj fo'ks"k fuf/k ls 1-54 djksM+ dk _.k 'kklu }kjk fn;k x;k gSA 'kklu ds fu/kkZfjr 'krksZ ds vuqlkj mDr _.k ds fo:) lfefr dh ifjlEifŸk;ka jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa izca/kd gSA iape osrueku Lohd`r fd;s tkus gsrq lfefr dh izca/k desVh }kjk dksbZ izLrko ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj fu/kkZfjr ekudksa dh 'krZ iw.kZ u djus ds dkj.k lfefr esa c<+rs yxkrkj ldy ?kkVs dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, iape osrueku Lohd`r fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh curkA^^ As is evident from a reading of the extract of the communication of the Cane Commissioner of 30 September 2005, bearing in mind the precarious financial condition of Cane Cooperative Development Unions, it was left open for them to take a decision with respect to adoption of the recommendations made by the Fifth Pay Commission. This the State had clearly provided since it was clarified that any additional burden that may fall upon the Cane Cooperative Development Union would be borne by them independently and without any financial aid or assistance of the State Government. The respondents have then alluded to the financial condition and the losses under which the particular respondent union was reeling. It has further been stated categorically that in light of the precarious financial position, the Board of the Cane Cooperative Development Union did not at any point of time either adopt or decide to implement the recommendations as made by the Fifth Pay-Commission……….” 8. This Court has perused the entire record. It does appear from a perusal of the record that the sole reason assigned by the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow to pass the order impugned, declining the petitioner's claim is the non-submission of a proposal to implement the 6th Pay Commission recommendation by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. The claim has been declined with a remark that as and when the said proposal is received, a decision to implement it would be taken. This Court finds that a proposal by the Cooperative Societies, Dhaulana has already been made, which ought not only be available with the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, but also with the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd., Lucknow. Between them, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the competent authorities to sanction the proposal. The impugned order has been passed, ignoring the proposal dated 10.02.2011, duly recommended to the Managing Director and also the memo dated 20.01.2015, which mentions some further proposal dated 13.01.2015 for the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission in the Establishment of the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur. This being so, the impugned order passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow suffers from the errors of ignorance of material evidence on record, besides being manifestly illegal. 9. The submission of Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents, based on the decision of this Court in Jay Narayan Tiwari (supra), would not be attracted to the facts here for more than one reason. The said decision is based on the circular of the Cane Commissioner, dated September the 30th, 2005, which apparently relates to the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission. It has not been asserted by Mr. The said decision is based on the circular of the Cane Commissioner, dated September the 30th, 2005, which apparently relates to the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission. It has not been asserted by Mr. Ravindra Singh that the said circular applies years later to the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission as well. 10. Secondly, the decision would not come to the respondents’ rescue because on the facts here, the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, District Hapur have already submitted a proposal seeking implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission. Thus, if the Cane Commissioner’s circular, dated 30th September, 2005, were to apply to the Sixth Pay Commission also, it would not avail the respondents, because the Samiti concerned would be conscious of its finances before making a recommendation for the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission. 11. There is still another reason why the submission based on the decision in Jay Narayan Tiwari (supra) would not apply. The impugned order does not carry for a justification the fact that the Sahkari Samiti in question is reeling under a financial crisis or that the Cane Commissioner’s circular dated 30th September, 2005 or a similar circular, subsequently issued vis-a-vis the Sixth Pay Commission, stands to defeat the petitioner’s claim. The law is well settled that the validity of an order under challenge before the Court can be judged by the reasons that it carries. Nothing can be added to the reasons, on which the impugned order is founded by way of affidavits, much less submissions made during the hearing. 12. In this view of the matter, the submissions advanced by Mr. Ravindra Singh, founded on the decision of this Court in Jay Narayan Tiwari cannot avail the respondents. 13. It must be remarked that the petitioner has reportedly retired. In case a decision to implement the 6th Pay Commission were to be taken and the petitioner's claim considered, he would be entitled to revised pay-scale from an appropriate date and also revision of his post-retiral benefits. 14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 09.03.2015 is hereby quashed. In case a decision to implement the 6th Pay Commission were to be taken and the petitioner's claim considered, he would be entitled to revised pay-scale from an appropriate date and also revision of his post-retiral benefits. 14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 09.03.2015 is hereby quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow and also to the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd., Lucknow to take a decision between them, or whosoever is entitled under law, regarding implementation of the 6th Pay Commission for the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Dhaulana, Hapur based on the pending recommendation dated 10.02.2011 and further recommendation made in the matter, within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are implemented for the Sahkari Ganna Samiti concerned, the petitioner’s emoluments and post retiral benefits would be revised and paid, within three months of the decision to implement the pay commission recommendations. 15. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 16. Let this order be communicated to the Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow and the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd., Lucknow by the Joint Registrar (Compliance).