Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM GOPAL versus THE STATE OF U.P. THRU PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Gopal v. The State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary & Others - WRIT - A No. 10248 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3578 (1 March 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. 1                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10248 of 2007

  Ram Gopal                     versus          The State of U.P. and others  

   

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

 

    The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner will be retired by the respondents on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.3.2007.

  There appears to be controversy regarding the age of superannuation i.e. 58 or 60 years.

         In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4667 of 2007, Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others this Court had passed the following order on 1.2.2007.

            " Admittedly, till date the age of superannuation as fixed in the rules is 58 years though a proposal for enhancement is still pending with the State Government. Even otherwise passing of an interim order would amount to allowing the writ petition, which would be against the rules as they stand today. Therefore, the stay application shall be considered after exchange of pleadings.

  However, it is prayed that the State Government may be directed to pass orders on the recommendations made by the Corporation. It is by now well settled that no interim order can be granted which is beyond the scope of the final prayer in the writ petition. The writ petition is directed against a retiral notice and no further relief has been sought. Consequently, the interim order cannot be passed.    

     Sd.Illegible

                                                                      Hon. D.P. Singh,J."

         In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21441 of 2006, Bhajan Lal Versus State of U.P. and others this Court had passed the following order on 19.4.2006.

          " Supplementary affidavit filed today may be taken on record.  

             Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Sri Vivek Mathur has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

             Respondents are accorded one month's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

              List after six weeks.

              It is made clear that in the event of success entire benefits would be extended to the petitioner.

                                                                       Sd.Illegible

                                                                      Hon.V.K.Shukla,J."

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.4.2006 the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 416 of 2006 which was dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2006 which is as under:-

                 " We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shukla on 19.4.2006.

                          The appeal is dismissed.

                                                                      Sd.Illegible

                                                                Hon.A.N. Ray,C.J.

                                                                      Sd.Illegible

                                                                Hon. Ashok Bhushan,J."

           It is apparent from above that in some of the writ petitions interim order was granted by this Court. Special Appeals are pending against the interim order. In some other cases the petitioners have been permitted to work up till age of 60 years. The Special Appeal filed by an employee has also been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.

Following the aforesaid order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 416 of 2006, Bhajan lal Vs. The State of U.P. and others (supra) and the order dated 1.2.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4667 of 2007, Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, no interim order can be passed in this writ petition also.

In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to call for counter affidavit. Let the counter affidavit be filed within 3 weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within 1 week thereafter.

         List thereafter

Dated 1.3.2007

CPP/-

             

 

 


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.