Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM LAKSHAN PRASAD versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Lakshan Prasad v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29710 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10892 (1 July 2007)

 

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.39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.   29710  of   2007

Ram Lakshan Prasad ............................................................    Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & others   ...............................          Respondents

....................................

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.  Sri R. K. Srivastava has appeared for the respondents.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the  order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria by which the representation of the petitioner  for treating his age of superannuation as 60 years  in place of 58 years  has been rejected.  Petitioner completed 58 years  of age on 19.1.2005 and was  to retire on 31st of January, 2005.  Petitioner moved an application that he be retired at the age of 60 years relying on the  Government order  dated 28.11.2001 which was issued with regard to the Government servants.  Petitioner filed a writ petition No. 8659 of 2005 in which this  Court passed an order that the superannuation age of the petitioner shall abide by the final result of the writ petition,  this order was filed on 21.2.2005 and the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 30.8.2006.  By the notification dated 25.8.2005 the age of superannuation with regard to clerks of recognised Junior High Schools was extended from 58 years to 60 years.  The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by the impugned order has held that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of  Government order  dated 25.8.2005 since the petitioner had already completed age of 58 years on 19.1.2005.  Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of  Government order  dated 25.8.2005 since in August, 2005 he was continuing in service.

I have  considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner was working as clerk in a Junior High School. His service conditions were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools ) (Recruitment  and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984.  Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the appointment of the petitioner  was made in the year 1967 i. e. prior to enforcement of  the said Rules.

The petitioner being clerk in Junior High School  shall be governed by  1984  Rules whether he was appointed prior or subsequent to the aforesaid Rules,  the date of appointment shall not make any difference regarding applicability of Rules,  According to which Rules  the age of retirement  of the clerk was 58 years. The State Government extended the said age of retirement for clerks by the  Government order  dated 25.8.2005 on which date the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation.  The benefit of the  Government order  dated 25.8.2005  was not applicable to the petitioner,  he having completed 58 years of 19.1.2005.  The District  Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rightly considered  all aspects of the matter and rejected the representation of the petitioner.  There is no error in the impugned order dated 18.11.2006 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

D/-6.7.2007

SCS        


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.