High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Niwas Tyagi v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 799 of 2007  RD-AH 15941 (24 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL (Defective) NO.799 OF 2007
Ram Niwas Tyagi, S/o Shri Nathu Singh Tyagi,
R/o Kharkhauda, Tehsil & District Meerut.
1. State of U.P. through Secretary Basic Education,
Government of U.P., Lucknow.
2. District Basic Education Officer, Meerut.
3. Finance & Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha, Meerut.
4. Committee of Management,
Shri Nehru Vidhya Peeth Kharkhauda,
District-Meerut through its Manager Vcikram Singh.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. W.H. Khan
Counsel for the Respondent: S.C.
Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Date : September 24, 2007
Oral Judgement (Per: H.L. Gokhale, CJ)
1. Heard Mr. W.H. Khan in support of this appeal.
2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 27th April 2007 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. The appellant was a Class III employee and he retired on 31st July 2005. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 25th August 2005 extending the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. The contention of the appellant is that the Cabinet has taken decision on 13th July 2005 and a press cutting is annexed and submission is made in para 7 of an affidavit filed in the appeal that the Cabinet decision was taken on 13th July 2005 and therefore the decision should be made operative from 13th July 2005 so that the appellant could get extension of two years.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a Full Court judgment of this Court rendered in P.K. Malik Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (6) AWC 5945 and also a judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mool Chand Dasumal Pardasani, AIR 1971 SC 2369. In the first case there was a Government Order which was to operate prospective but the Court gave it retrospective operation. In the second case there was memorandum issued by the President when the rules were not amended and respondent in that matter was given benefit of that memorandum.
5. In the present case, in our view, the Government decision is clear. It is for the first time that with effect from 25th August 2005 the Government decided to extend the age of retirement. The cabinet decision was not transcribed or converted into any Government Order or Memorandum prior to 25th August 2005.
6. This being the position, in our view, not to give a retrospective effect, no error on the part of learned Single Judge is committed.
7. The appeal stands dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar, J.)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.