Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jata Shanker Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 51856 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1756 (26 July 2005)


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).


Civil Misc. W.P. No. 51856 of 2005

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.

Hon'ble G.P. Srivastva, J.

Under section 48 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Board has the power to make Regulations after consultation with the Development Bank and with the previous sanction of the State Government.

Read with General Clauses Act, this section 48 would include the power to make amendments to the existing Regulations in the same manner and subject to the same conditions. It has been stated by Sri Satish Chaturvedi representing the respondent Corporation that in 2004, the proposal of the Board to amend the Regulations and enhance the retirement age from the existing 58 years provided by the existing Regulation 19 of the U.P. Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961 has been turned down by the State Government by the order dated 30.4.2004. A copy of the order of the Government to that effect written by the Special Secretary, Industrial Development Section VI to the Managing Director, U.P. Financial Corporations, Kanpur has been shown by Sri Satish Chaturvedi. However, it is not disputed that the Corporation has sent a similar proposal again for consideration of the State Government.

In the circumstances, the State Government is obliged to examine the proposal for considering whether it is in accordance with section 48 of the Act, and thereafter, to consider whether the previous sanction of the State Government should or should not be given to such a proposal and for enhancing the retirement age of the employees of the Financial Corporation.

Because, it has been stated by the petitioner that the decision has not yet been taken by the State Government, therefore, we direct the respondent No. 1 to get the matter examined and to take a decision on the proposal sent by the U.P. Financial Corporation within two months of the date on which certified copy of this order is presented before the respondent No. 1.

Because the existing Regulation 19 provides the retirement age at 58 years and at present there is no previous approval by the State Government to the proposed amendment of enhancement of the retirement age, therefore, no other order is called for in this writ petition.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Dated : July 26, 2005



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.