# Kailash Narain Trigunayat v. State Of U.P. & Others - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 263 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-02-20 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35165 of 2010 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kailash-narain-trigunayat-v-state-of-u-p-others-42473 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III-regulation 21-retirement notice-retiring petition at the age of 60 years-on ground as per G.O. 17.02.99not given option within one year from due date of retirement-direction to Regional Joint Diredtor to take appropriate decisions as per law laid down in Smt. Prabha Shanker casewithin specific period. Held: Para-7 In view of the aforesaid facts, let the Regional Joint Director of Education - Respondent No. 3, proceed to pass an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner and in view of the law laid down hereinabove coupled with the provisions of the Government Order dated 17.2.1999 as well as taking in account the ratio of the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Kakkar Vs. Joint Director of Education, Kanpur & others reported in 2000 (2) ESC Pg. 1118 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent after putting the Committee of Management also to notice in this respect and giving an opportunity of hearing. Case Law discussed: 2000 (2) ESC Pg. 1118; Yamuna Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 17574 of 2007 ## Text 1 All] Kailash Narain Trigunayat Vs. State of U.P. & Others 263 nothing on record indicating that the petitioner is not an "industry". Merely by alleging that the petitioner is not an "industry" does not take them outside the realm of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The dominant nature test as illustrated in Bangalore Water Supply case (supra) has not been followed. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion, that the matter cannot be adjourned sine die. 28. The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35165 of 2010 Kailash Narain Trigunayat ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh Sri Rajeshwar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Sri H.P. Mishra Sri Pradeep Upadhyay Sri V.K.S.Kushwaha U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III-regulation 21-retirement notice-retiring petition at the age of 60 years-on ground as per G.O. 17.02.99not given option within one year from due date of retirement-direction to Regional Joint Diredtor to take appropriate decisions as per law laid down in Smt. Prabha Shanker casewithin specific period. Held: Para-7 In view of the aforesaid facts, let the Regional Joint Director of Education - Respondent No. 3, proceed to pass an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner and in view of the law laid down hereinabove coupled with the provisions of the Government Order dated 17.2.1999 as well as taking in account the ratio of the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Kakkar Vs. Joint Director of Education, Kanpur & others reported in 2000 (2) ESC Pg. 1118 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent after putting the Committee of Management also to notice in this respect and giving an opportunity of hearing. Case Law discussed: 2000 (2) ESC Pg. 1118; Yamuna Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 17574 of 2007 (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.) 1. The petitioner has come up against the notice of retirement issued to him on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years as per Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 2. Notices were issued and counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent State as well as by the Committee of Management. Both the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner had not exercised his option within time according to the Government Order dated 17.2.1999 within one year of his attaining 60 years and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of continuance. They further contend that in the absence of any option having been exercised the petitioner 264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 cannot be treated to be continuing in service or even for entitlement of salary. The counter affidavit of the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad also takes the same stand. 3. The petitioner retired after attaining the age of 60 years on 1.7.2009. He continued thereafter till the end of the session i.e. upto 30.6.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Yamuna Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 17574 of 2007 which was in relation to the same institution. In the said case the option had been exercised but had not been communicated after being accepted by the competent authority. In essence in that case there was no reciprocation of the option. 5. The Court after taking notice of this fact came to the following conclusion:- "It is, therefore, clear that the main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is based on the option exercised by the petitioner on 30th January, 1992 that his age of superannuation should be taken as 58 years. It is their contention that the petitioner had submitted this option form pursuant to the Government Order dated 4th November, 1991 and the option was accepted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education who thereafter sent the communication dated 25th March, 1992 to the Manager/Principal of the College conveying the acceptance. There is, however, nothing on the record to indicate that this acceptance was ever conveyed to the petitioner. It is for this reason that Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Prabha Kakkar (supra) wherein the acceptance of option by Regional Deputy Director of Education and its communication to the teacher concerned was found to be necessary, the option exercised by the petitioner is of no consequence and, therefore, the petitioner will attain the age of superannuation at 62 years in terms of Regulation 21 contained in Chapter III of the Act. In view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Prabha Kakkar (supra), this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted. The petitioner may have opted that his age of superannuation should be 58 years by sending a communication dated 1st July, 2003 to the District Inspector of Schools but this option was never accepted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and, therefore, acceptance by the District Inspector of Schools and its communication is of no consequence. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner will attain the age of superannuation in accordance with Regulation 21 contained in Chapter III of the Act at 62 years. The view to the contrary taken by the Director of Education in the impugned order dated 6th March, 2007 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 6th March, 2007 passed by the Director of Education is set aside. The petitioner has attained the age of 62 years by now. It is, therefore, directed that the arrears of salary shall be paid to the petitioner 1 All] Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another 265 treating his age of superannuation to be 62 years within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above." 6. In the instant case the respondents allege that there is no exercise of option in terms of the G.O. dated 17.2.1999. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, let the Regional Joint Director of Education - Respondent No. 3, proceed to pass an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner and in view of the law laid down hereinabove coupled with the provisions of the Government Order dated 17.2.1999 as well as taking in account the ratio of the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Kakkar Vs. Joint Director of Education, Kanpur & others reported in 2000 (2) ESC Pg. 1118 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent after putting the Committee of Management also to notice in this respect and giving an opportunity of hearing. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43331 of 2000 Sohan Lal ...Petitioner Versus U.P.Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vikram D. Chauhan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.C.Tripathi S.C. U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975-regualtion 85disciplinary proceeding-petitioner the District Manager in P.C.F. Given reply to show-cause notice-disciplinary authority punished with recovery of pecuniary loss with adverse entry-whether such punishment be awarded without oral enquiry-sustain for inflicting minor punishment oral enquiry not necessaryheld-minor penalty can not dilute the legal right-enquiry must be in conformity with procedure prescribed-proceeding vitiated-order quashed. Held: Para-34 Therefore, mere fact that lastly only minor penalty could have been inflicted upon petitioner, would not dilute his legal right that disciplinary inquiry when initiated must have been held in conformity with procedure prescribed, attracting provisions, applicable at the inception of inquiry. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J) 1. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 29th August, 2000, whereby the respondent no.2, the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lucknow has imposed minor punishment of special adverse entry and a recovery of Rs. 3,19,984.99.