# Chandra Charu Mishra v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 704
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31015 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-charu-mishra-v-the-state-of-u-p-others-40172
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-14Service Law-Termination order attendant
worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year-Labour Court given award
for reinstatement with full back wageschallenged on the basis of no work no
pay-question whether workman entitled
for full back wages or otherwise? Reason
for not giving full back wages well
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

## Text

704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person who
is 18 years of age is major vide Section 3
of the said Act. The law deems that a
major understands his/her welfare, hence
a major can go wherever he/she likes and
live with any body. This is a free,
democratic and secular country. Hence if
a person is a major even parents cannot
interfere with that individual.

2. The petitioners who appeared
before us have stated that they are living
with each other of their own free will. In
the counter affidavit which has been filed
it has been stated that a First Information
Report has been lodged under Section 363
and 366 I.P.C. That may be so, but once a
person becomes a major that person
cannot be restrained from going anywhere
or living with any body. Individual liberty
under Article 21 has the highest place in
our Constitution.

3. Under the facts and circumstances
of this case, the writ petition is allowed. A
mandamus is issued to the respondents
not to harass or threaten the petitioners
and allow them to live peacefully with
each other. The Senior Superintendent of
Police Agra and Superintendent of Police
Firozabad will ensure compliance of this
order.

4. The petitioners have stated that
they need security to go from here to
Firozabad as they have apprehension
about their safety. The Court Officer of
this Court will contact the local police for
providing security to them at Allahabad
and for their journey to Firozabad. Further
the petitioners shall be provided security
at Firozabad, by the police authorities
concerned there.

5. Let a certified copy of this order
be given to the learned counsel for the
petitioners on payment of usual charges
today itself.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31015 of 2003

Chandra Charu Mishra
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Tewari
Sri S.S. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 14- cut of
date G.O. dated 1.7.01 providing revision
the pay scale w.e.f. 1992-Petitioner
retired on 30.6.01-whether can claim the
benefit
of
such
G.O.?
Held-
'No',
recording the reason for fixing the cut of
date-not necessary.

Held- Para 3

Even if no reason has been given for the
basis of a cut off date, the Court cannot
interfere in such matters. It is for the
administration to fix the cut off date and
the Court should not interfere in such
administrative matters as held in the
aforesaid decisions. Some persons are
bound to have a grievance by a cut off
date, but that would not make it
arbitrary, vide Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State
of Rajasthan (supra)
Case law discussed:
J.T. 1991 (6) S.C. 400
2000 (3) SCC 736
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Chandra Charu Mishra V. The State of U.P. and others
705
1996 (9) SCC 133
J.T. 1997 (6) SC 72
1994 (4) SCC-212
1990 (3) SCC-398

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the
impugned
G.O.
dated
20.7.2001,
8.8.2001, 3.9.2001 and 20.12.2001 on the
ground that they are ultra vires Article 14
of the Constitution. The petitioner has
also prayed for a mandamus directing the
respondent to fix the pension of the
petitioner according to revised pay scale
given by the fifth pay Commission.

2. The petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Teacher in Government Model
School on 4.1.1967 and was confirmed on
1.7.1971. He was provided selection
Grade from 4.1.1983 and the pay scales
were revised by the pay Commission in
1986 and 1996. The petitioner retired on
30.6.2001. By the impugned G.O. a
teacher who was in service on 1.7.2001 is
entitled to get the benefit of the revised
pay scale from 1.1.1996.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner retired
on 30.6.2001 and hence he was not
governed by the said G.O. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the cut of date i.e. 1.7.2001 is ultra vires
Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not
agree. Cut off dates have been upheld in
several decisions of the Supreme Court
e.g. All India Reserve Bank Retired
Officers Association v. Union of India,
J.T. 1991 (6) S.C. 400, State of Punjab v.
J.L.
Gupta,
2000
(3)
S.C.C.
736,
Multipurpose Health Workers Association
v. State of Haryana, 1996 (9) S.C.C. 133,
Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan,
J.T. 1997 (6) S.C. 72, Union of India v.
Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, 1994 (4) S.C.C.
212, etc. that even if no reason has been
given for the basis of a cut off date, the
Court cannot interfere in such matters. It
is for the administration to fix the cut off
date and the Court should not interfere in
such administrative matters as held in the
aforesaid decisions. Some persons are
bound to have a grievance by a cut off
date, but that would not make it arbitrary,
vide Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of
Rajasthan (supra)

4. Petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14755 of 1998

General
Manager/Managing
Director,
and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Sharma
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-14Service Law-Termination order attendant
worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year-Labour Court given award
for reinstatement with full back wageschallenged on the basis of no work no
pay-question whether workman entitled
for full back wages or otherwise? Reason
for not giving full back wages well
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in