Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2005
  6. /
  7. January

Gaya Prasad Panchal Son Of ... vs The State Of U.P. Through ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 November, 2005

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Petitioner was appointed as Manyata Nlrikshak in the Niyantran Board constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Mahila Sansthan and Bal Sansthan Adhiniyam 1956 and Rules framed thereunder, under Mahila Evam Vikas Vibhag , department of the State Government. The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated 4.5.2005 whereunder it has been recorded that the petitioner would attain the age of 58 years on 30.11.2005 and shall, therefore, retire from the said date. In the impugned notice dated 4.5.2005 it has further been recorded- that the State Government has turned out the request of the Secretary, Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh for fixing the age of retirement of its employees as sixty years i.e. at par with the other government employees on the ground that the amendment in the fundamental rules with regards in age of retirement of Government Servant is not attracted in respect of the employees of Uttar Pradesh Niyantran Board. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the aforesaid notice proceeds on non .application of mind to the service rules applicable.
2. On behalf of the respondents Standing Counsel has submitted that since the State Government has not taken any decision to increase the age of retirement of the employees of Uttar Pradesh Niyantran Board from 58 years to 60 years 89 apparent from the letter of Special Secretary dated 24.11,2003 (Annexure counter affidavit-1), the impugned order does not call for any interference.
3. The service conditions of the petitioner and other similarly situate employees of Niyantran Board are regulated by the service rules known as Prashasnik Board Ke Karmchariyon Ki Seva Niyamavali, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Service Rules of 1977) . The aforesaid service rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Mahila Sanstha Thatha Bal Sanstha (Niyantran) Adhiniyam, 1956 read with Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Mahila Sanstha Thatha Bal Sanstha (Niyantran) Niyamavali. It is stated that under Rule 27 of the aforesaid Service Rules the age of retirement of the employees covered by the aforesaid Service rules has been provided as follows :
Rule 27- Seva Nivrit:- Rajya Sarkar Dwara Rajklya Karmhariyon Ke Liye Samay Samay Per Nirgat Kiya Gaye Seva Nivrit Aadesh Board Ke Karmcharfyon Per Lagoo Honge.
4. From the aforesaid Rules 27, it is apparently clear that the age of retirement of the employees covered by the Service Rules of 1977 would be the same as would be applicable in respect of government employees fixed from time to time.
5. It is not in dispute that the state Government has now fixed sixty years as the age of retirement for its employees IS per the amendment in the Fundamental Rules. Since the rules referred to above have statutory force and they do not contemplate any further amendments being made or orders being issued by the State Government for fixing the age of retirement of the employees covered by the aforesaid Service Rules of 1977 at par with the the age of retirement fixed by the State Government for its employees. The age fixed by the government for its employees become the age of retirement of the employees become the age of retirement of the employees covered by the 1977 Rules automatically. The respondents are, therefore, not justified in stating that the State Government has not taken any decision to increase the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years qua the employees covered by the Service Rules of 1977.
6. In the opinion of the Court no such decision of the State Government or of any other authority is contemplated under the Rules. As noticed hereinabove the age of retirement fixed by the State Government for its employees becomes the age of retirement of the employees covered by the Service Rules of 1977 ipso facto in view of the language used in Rule 27 of Service Rules of 1977, The stand taken by the respondents for retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years cannot be legally sustained and accordingly the notice dated 4.5.2005 is quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits.
7. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Gaya Prasad Panchal Son Of ... vs The State Of U.P. Through ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 November, 2005
Judges
  • A Tandon