Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2524 of 2011 Appellant :- Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Others Respondent :- Ram Naresh Singh & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Q.H. Siddiqui,Amit Dube,Vimlesh Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhtar Ali
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, counsel for appellant has appeared, none has appeared on behalf of respondent, hence we proceed to decide the matter after hearing learned counsel for appellant.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment and order dated 21.05.2007 in writ petition no. 42219 of 2006 passed by learned Single Judge whereby writ petition has been partly allowed and it is directed that petitioner-respondent shall retire at the age of 60 years. Counsel for appellant stated that controversy raised is decided and stands settled under judgment and order of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty & Others being Civil Appeal No. 5527 of 2012 decided on 02.07.2013. The operative portion of the above judgment is quoted herein below:
"38. In these cases as we have already held that Regulation 31 shall be applicable and the age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam shall be 60 years; we are of the view that following consequential and pecuniary benefits should be allowed to different sets of employees who were ordered to retire at the age of 58 years.
(a) The employees including respondents who moved before a court of law irrespective of fact whether interim order was passed in their favour or not, shall be entitled for full salary up to the age of 60 years. The arrears of salary shall be paid to them after adjusting the amount if any paid.
(b) The employees, who never moved before any court of law and had to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, they shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, in view of Regulation 31 they will deem to have continued in service up to the age of 60 years."
3. For reasons given in above judgment and with same directions, this special appeal is also disposed of. As a result thereof, all consequential action shall be taken without any delay.
Order Date :- 1.12.2017/S. Thakur