Court No. - 55
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1063 of 2011 Appellant :- U.P. Jal Nigam Respondent :- Prem Pal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Indu Prakash Singh,Amit Dubey,Vimlesh Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Yadav
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for appellant. None has appeared on behalf of respondents even in revised call. Hence, we proceed to decide the matter finally after hearing learned counsel for appellant.
2. In all these appeals, dispute relates to age of retirement of the employees of U.P. Jal Nigam. Learned Single Judge has decided the matter holding that employees are entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years.
3. Above controversy is now finally settled vide judgment and order of Apex Court in 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."
4. For reasons given in the above judgment and with same directions, these special appeals are disposed of. As a result thereof, all consequential action shall be taken without any further delay.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 lakshman [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] [Vikram Nath, J.] .
Court No. - 55
C. M. Application No. 319720 of 2011 in re:
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1063 of 2011 Appellant :- U.P. Jal Nigam Respondent :- Prem Pal Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Indu Prakash Singh,Amit Dubey,Vimlesh Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Yadav
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the applicant. None has appeared on behalf of respondents even in revised call. Hence, we proceed to decide the matter finally after hearing learned counsel for the applicant.
The appeal has been filed beyond time by 336 days.
As the delay has been satisfactorily explained, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.
Let the appeal be treated to be within time.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 lakshman [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] [Vikram Nath, J.]