Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHAN KUMAR TRIPATHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishan Kumar Tripathi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 24139 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 1158 (14 October 2004)

 

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

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the  parties this writ petition is being heard and decided at this stage.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 5.5.2004 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit whereby a direction has been issued that the petitioner shall retire on 31.7.2004 on his attaining the age of superannuation.

The contention of the petitioner is that he had joined the service of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit on 29.4.1968 and as per the Retention and Retirement of Servants of Municipal Boards Regulations, 1965, the age of his retirement from service would be 60 years and not 58 years. The contention of the petitioner is that it is only these Regulations of 1965 which would be applicable in the case of the petitioner.

Sri V.C.Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 does not dispute that the said Regulations of 1965 alone would be applicable in the case of the service of the petitioner. The only ground taken by the respondents for retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years is that he had at some stage in the year 1993 given an option for being retired at the age of 58 years. However, it has been categorically stated in Paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit that the said option given earlier had been withdrawn by the petitioner on 9.12.1998, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-S.A.1 and it had been categorically stated that he may be retired at the age of 60 years as per the Regulations. In the counter affidavit the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not denied the said withdrawal letter.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 5.5.2004 is liable to be quashed.

The age of retirement of an employee of the Municipal Board would be governed by the Regulations of 1965. Regulation 3 clearly mentions that the age of retirement would be 60 years. It is however, provided that the appointing authority may require a servant to retire on his attaining the age of 58 years on three months' notice if the servant concerned is physically unfit or inefficient.

It is not the case of the respondents that any such notice has been given to the petitioner before directing that the petitioner would be retired at the age of 58 years. The option said to have been given by the petitioner to retire him at the age of 58 years had admittedly been withdrawn by him nearly six years earlier in the year 1998. It is not disputed that the Regulations of 1965 alone are applicable in the present case which provide for retirement  age as 60 years. As such directing the petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years in the present case is not justified and thus the order dated 5.5.2004 retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years is liable to be quashed and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall accordingly be permitted to continue to remain in service and be paid his salary till he attains the age of superannuation, which in the present case would be 60 years. However, this order shall not be a bar for the respondents from invoking the provisions of Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations of 1965 which provides for giving three months' notice for retiring a servant from service if it is found that he is physically unfit or inefficient.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

Dt/-14.10.2004

ps

w.p.24139.04


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.