# Dr. Shiv Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. and Ors - **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1407 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-10-24 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5527-5543 of 2013 - **Bench:** Rajes Kumar, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-shiv-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42715 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service law-retirement age-lecturer, reader/professor-in different degree college or post graduate colleges-claiming their age of superannuation as 65 years-in J.P. Sharma case the Apex Court held age of retirement as 62 years-entitle for salary benefit during period they have worked even after achieving 62 years-petition disposed of with same direction to release pensionary benefit-taking into account the age of 62 years-accordingly general mandamus issued. Held: Para-6 In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period, during which they have worked in view of the interim order granted by any Court or by the Apex Court even after attaining the age of 62 years but their post retiral benefits shall be calculated on the basis of salary drawn when the petitioners attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 62 years. Respondents nos.2, 3 and 6 are directed to make the payment to the petitioners after necessary verification, within a period of two months as directed above from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order in accordance to law. Case Law discussed: Civil Appeal No. 5527-5543 of 2013 ## Text 3 All] Dr. Shiv Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1407 11. In the case of Ratilal B. Soni and others v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1132, the Apex Court has held that employee on deputation do not get any right to be absorbed on deputation post and can be reverted back to his parent department at any time. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, fails and is dismissed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.10.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J. THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. Writ A No. 58263 of 2013, W.P. No. 58266 of 2013, W.P. No. 58269 of 2013, W.P. No. 58271 of 2013, W.P. No. 58388 of 2013, W.P. No. 58389 of 2013 Dr. Shiv Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.P. Dubey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Vivek Varma Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service law-retirement age-lecturer, reader/professor-in different degree college or post graduate colleges-claiming their age of superannuation as 65 years-in J.P. Sharma case the Apex Court held age of retirement as 62 years-entitle for salary benefit during period they have worked even after achieving 62 years-petition disposed of with same direction to release pensionary benefit-taking into account the age of 62 years-accordingly general mandamus issued. Held: Para-6 In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period, during which they have worked in view of the interim order granted by any Court or by the Apex Court even after attaining the age of 62 years but their post retiral benefits shall be calculated on the basis of salary drawn when the petitioners attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 62 years. Respondents nos.2, 3 and 6 are directed to make the payment to the petitioners after necessary verification, within a period of two months as directed above from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order in accordance to law. Case Law discussed: Civil Appeal No. 5527-5543 of 2013 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners retired as Readers, Lecturer/Associate Professor/Associate Professor/Reader. They claimed that their age of retirement should be 65 years while the claim of the State Government was that the age of retirement is 62 years. Matter went upto the Apex Court. In Civil Appeal Nos.5527-5543 of 2013, Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and in other connected appeals arising from the State of U.P., the Apex Court vide order dated 17.07.2013 has held that the age of retirement is 62 years and the claim of the petitioners that the age of retirement should be 65 years has been rejected. Before the Apex Court, it was also contended that some of the teachers, Professors, Readers etc. worked on the basis of the interim order after 62 years and, therefore, they are also entitled for the benefit of service. In respect of such claim, the Apex Court observed that "However, persons, who have continued to 1408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners worked after the age of 62 years on the basis of the interim order thus are entitled for the salary for the period during which they have worked in view of the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in view of the direction of the Apex Court, the petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period during which they worked in view of the interim order of the Apex Court but their post retiral benefits will be calculated on the basis of the salary drawn by the petitioners on the date when they have been superannuated after attaining the age of 62 years. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners as well learned Standing Counsel. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period, during which they have worked in view of the interim order granted by any Court or by the Apex Court even after attaining the age of 62 years but their post retiral benefits shall be calculated on the basis of salary drawn when the petitioners attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 62 years. Respondents nos.2, 3 and 6 are directed to make the payment to the petitioners after necessary verification, within a period of two months as directed above from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order in accordance to law. 7. Further it is observed that we find that number of writ petitions are being filed for seeking the aforesaid direction. 8. In view of the above, we may observe that above direction may also apply in case of similarly situated persons and such persons instead of approaching this Court, may place our order before the authority concerned and the authority concerned is directed to comply with aforesaid direction after verification. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Writ -A No. 62797 of 2012 alongwith W.P. No. 45177 of 2012, W.P. No. 62938 of 2012, W.P. No. 65427 of 2012 W.P. No. 5283 of 2013, W.P. No. 5282 of 2013, 9302 of 2013, W.P. No. 9817 of 2013, W.P. No. 9820 of 2013, W.P. No. 11703 of 2013, W.P. No. 15423 of 2013, W.P. No. 1550 of 2013, W.P. No. 15430 of 2013, W.P. 15546 of 2013, W.P. No. 15548 of 2013, W.P. No. 15428 of 2013 W.P. No. 24737 of 2013, W.P. No. 24738 of 2013, W.P. No. 32140 of 2013 and W.P. No. 32157 of 2013 1601 C.P. Sudeep Kumar &Ors. Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.N. Singh Rathore Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Police Regulation-Regulation 398- petitioners appointed as police constable in Arm Police etc-in view of amended G.O.- 17.09.2002 denied the salary-which