Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAIJ NATH YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baij Nath Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 48661 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 524 (9 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.30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48661 of 1999

Baij Nath Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others

******

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Shri Jokhan Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed off at this stage in terms of the High Court Rules.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years who is admittedly a consolidation Lekhpal, and as per the contention of the petitioner he was required to be retired at the age of 60 years in accordance with law. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the present writ petition and vide interim order dated 29.11.1999 he was allowed to continue to work till he attained the age of 60 years. The respondents were also directed to pay the salary to the petitioner accordingly. The petitioner has during the pendency of the writ petition retired and has now claimed that his retiral benefits be calculated at the age of 60 years and be released in his favour. Counter affidavit has been filed and it has been submitted that the petitioner has been rightly retired at the age of 58 years as he did not belong to group 'D' of class IV employee.

I have perused the record and the service rules of U.P. Consolidation Lekhpal Service Rules 1978. Rule 2 reads as under :-

2. Status.-- The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Lekhpal Service Comprises Group 'D' posts.

From rules it is clear that the services of Lekhpal consolidation belongs to group 'D' and as per proviso to fundamental Rule 56 the age of 58 years for superannuation in respect of Government servant recruited before    November 5,1985 and holding group 'D' post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the month in which he attains the age of 60 (sixty) years. Rule 56 is quoted below :

56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the sage of fifty-eight years. He may be retained in service after the date of retirement on superannuation, with the sanction of the Government, on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances;

Provided that a Government servant, recruited before November 5, 1985 and holding the Group 'D' post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the month in which he attains the age of 60 (sixty) years.

Similar matters relating to retirement of the consolidation Lekhpals came up before this Court wherein also in Writ Petition No.245 (S/S) of 1999 Ram Deen Vs. State of U.P. and other decided on 12.3.1999 along with the cases of other petitioners and Writ Petition No.9696 of 1999 Kishori Ram Vs. State of U.P. and other decided on 5.10.1999, it has been held that the retirement date in respect with consolidation Lekhpal would be 60 years. The present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief claimed for. In view of the same, the impugned order-notice dated 22.10.1999 (annexure-2 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondents shall release all retiral benefits and emoluments to which the petitioner would be entitled to taking into consideration his superannuation age as 60 years. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

January 9, 2006

Hasnain


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.