Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GYANENDRA PRAKASH KULSHRESHTH versus M.D., U.P.S.R.T.C, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gyanendra Prakash Kulshreshth v. M.D., U.P.S.R.T.C, Lucknow And Others - WRIT - A No. 5961 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2344 (31 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5961 Of 2006

Gyanendra Prakash Kulshreshtha  

Vs

The Managing Director ,U.P.S.R.T.C.  and others  

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

            Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

                The counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by order dated 25.1.2006 in writ petition No. 4561 of 2006, Farook Husain Vs. M.D. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others and the same order may be passed in this case.  The order dated 25.1.2006 is as under:-

      "The petitioner claims his date of birth as 20.1.1948.

                                He was appointed on the post of Conductor in U.P. Government Roadways Department and was sent on deputation in the UPSRTC on its establishment and at present he is posted at Mathura Depot of the UPSRTC as class III employee.  He claims that as the State Government has extended the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years from the month of November, 2001, he is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years.

                   The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Aligarh by the impugned order dated 16.9.2005 directed retiring of the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years under the provisions of Rule 37 of the UPSRTC Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981.

                The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in U.P.  Government Roadways Department and was placed on deputation, hence according to the Regulation itself his services shall be governed under the parent department wherein the age of superannuation was 60 years.

             By judgment dated 21.9.2004 in Writ Petition No. 17252 of 1989 Dharma Dev and others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others this Court has held that the U.P. Road Transport Corporation was established under U.P. Road Transport Act, 1950. Section 45 of this Act confers powers on the State to frame Regulations providing service conditions. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 45 of the Act framed regulations known as " U.P. Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 which have been notified under Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. Paragaph 20 of aforesaid judgment dated 21.9.2004 in Dharma Dev's case (supra) is as under:-

                       " 20.   Exercising its powers under Section 45(2) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 the Corporation framed regulations known as " Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) with the previous sanction of the State Government superseding all existing rules or orders on the subject (emphasis supplied). These Regulations contain power of transfer from one establishment to another by the Corporation. This regulation was published in the U.P. Gazette vide notification No. 3517/XXX-2-1981 on 19.6.1981 but they were not notified under Section 13-B of the Standing Orders Act."

      Since the claim of the petitioner is based on Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 and G.O. dated 14th January, 2002, the matter requires scrutiny by this Court.

      Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. She prays for and is granted one month's and no more time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within 3 weeks thereafter.

   List thereafter.

    The prayer for interim relief is rejected in view of Union of India Vs. Air Commodor S.K. Mishra, 1999 SCC (L & S)-949."

             In the circumstances, the aforesaid order dated 25.1.2006 passed in writ petition no. 4561 of 2006, Farooq Husain Vs. M.D. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others is also passed in this writ petition.

List and connect with aforesaid Writ Petition No.4561 of 2006, Farooq Husain Vs. M.D. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others.

           Ordered accordingly.

Dated 31.1.2006

CPP/-

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.