# Manphool v. U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 819
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-07-30
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 3793 of 2014
- **Bench:** B. Amit Sthalekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manphool-v-u-p-jal-nigam-ors-42984
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Post
Retiral benefits-class 4th employee-in Jal
Nigam-retirement age-of 58 years or 60
years-in Jaswant Singh case-although
retirement age fixed 60 years-with two
classification
firstly
who
already
approached before Court whether got
interim order or not-entitled for arrears
of salary alongwith all consequential
benefit-the other one who not filed any
writ petition-shall get pensionary benefit
treating retirement age as 60 yearswithout arrears of salary-petitioner's
case fallen under Para 38 (b) of the Apex
Court.

Held: Para-8
The only question in the present case is
whether the claim of the petitioner was
barred by laches and no relief could be
granted by this Court in view of the
judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh
(supra). However, the judgment of Jaswant
Singh has already been considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Dayanand
Chakrawarty (supra) which was a case
relating to the employees of the Jal Nigam
and it is only thereafter that the Supreme
Court has given directions in para-38 of that
judgment.

Case Law discussed:
2005 (13) SCC 300; (2006) 11 SCC 464; Civil
Appeal No. 5527 of 2012; AIR 1997 SC 2366;
(1996) 6 SCC 267; AIR 1989 SC 674

## Text

2 All] Manphool Vs. U.P Jal Nigam & Ors.
819
deserves to be allowed and is hereby
allowed. The scheme of plain packaging
must be welcomed by all concerned and
the Government of India must consider to
implement the said scheme at the earliest.
We therefore, strongly recommend to the
Government of India to consider the
feasibility of implementing the plain
packaging of cigarettes and other tobacco
products.
We
hope
and
trust
that
necessary steps shall be taken by the
Union of India, at the earliest.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Service Single No. 3793 of 2014

Manphool ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Savita Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri I.P. Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Post
Retiral benefits-class 4th employee-in Jal
Nigam-retirement age-of 58 years or 60
years-in Jaswant Singh case-although
retirement age fixed 60 years-with two
classification
firstly
who
already
approached before Court whether got
interim order or not-entitled for arrears
of salary alongwith all consequential
benefit-the other one who not filed any
writ petition-shall get pensionary benefit
treating retirement age as 60 yearswithout arrears of salary-petitioner's
case fallen under Para 38 (b) of the Apex
Court.

Held: Para-8
The only question in the present case is
whether the claim of the petitioner was
barred by laches and no relief could be
granted by this Court in view of the
judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh
(supra). However, the judgment of Jaswant
Singh has already been considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Dayanand
Chakrawarty (supra) which was a case
relating to the employees of the Jal Nigam
and it is only thereafter that the Supreme
Court has given directions in para-38 of that
judgment.

Case Law discussed:
2005 (13) SCC 300; (2006) 11 SCC 464; Civil
Appeal No. 5527 of 2012; AIR 1997 SC 2366;
(1996) 6 SCC 267; AIR 1989 SC 674

(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)

1. Heard Ms.Savita Jain, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri
I.P.Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition
is seeking a direction to the respondents
to calculate his retiral dues treating his
retirment age as 60 years and also to pay
him arrears of pension and other dues.

3. According to the avements made
in the writ petition, the petitioner was a
Class IV employee in the U. P. Jal Nigam.
It is stated that earlier the age of
retirement was 58 years but subsequently
by G.O. dated 28.11.2001 it was enhanced
to 60 years by the State Government in all
the departments of the State Government.
A query was raised by the Jal Nigam as to
whether the age of retirement of the
employees of the Nigam would be 58
years or 60 years. The State Government
through
its
letter
dated
22.1.2002
informed the Nigam that age of the
employees of the Nigam would be 58
years and not 60 years and that the G.O.
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
enhancing the age to 60 years would be
applicable in the State Government and not
in the Nigam. Certain employees raised
their grievance with regard to age of
retirement. The matter went upto the
Supreme Court in the case of Harwindra
Kumar vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik and
others reported in 2005 (13) SCC 300 and
the Supreme Court by order dated
18.11.2005 directed the Nigam to continue
the petitioner therein till he attains the age
of 60 years i.e. on 30.8.2005. The State
Government issued G.O. dated 8.12.2005
and 30.8.2005 enhancing the age of
retirement from 58 years to 60 years for the
employees, who were employed in the
Local
Self
Government
Engineering
Department and were transferred to the U.P.
Jal Nigam but so far as the employees, who
were directly appointed in the U.P. Jal
Nigam were concerned, the age of
retirement would be 58 years. In the
judgment of Harwindra Kumar (supra) the
Supreme Court has held that the age of
retirement
of
Government
Servants
employed under the State of U.P. and who
were transferred in the Nigam would remain
60 years and so far as the employees of the
Nigam were concerned, liberty was given to
the Nigam to make suitable amendment in
Regulation 31 of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
Employees (Retirement on the age of
Superannuation) Regulations 2005.

4. Another dispute relating to age of
retirement of the employees of the Jal
Nigam came up before the Supreme Court
in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another
vs. Jaswant Singh 3and another reported
in (2006) 11 SCC 464 and the Supreme
Court allowed the benefits of arrears of
salary only to those employees of the
Nigam, who had filed writ petition but
denied the same to others, who had not
moved before any court of law.

5. Thereafter another Bunch matter
came up before the Supreme Court in the
Civil Appeal No.5527 of 2012, State of
U.P. vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty and
others and other connected Civil Appeals
wherein the directions given in the case of
Jaswant Singh were considered by the
Supreme Court. Para 38 of the said
judgement reads as follows:-

"38. In these cases as we have
already held that Regulation 31 shall be
applicable and the age of superannuation
of employees of the Nigam shall be 60
years; we are of the view that following
consequential and pecuniary benefits
should be allowed to different sets of
employees who were ordered to retire at
the age of 58 years:

(a)
The
employees
including
respondents who moved before a court of
law irrespective of fact whether interim
order was passed in their favour or not,
shall be entitled for full salary up to the
age of 60 years. The arrears of salary shall
be paid to them after adjusting the amount
if any paid.

(b) The employees, who never moved
before any court of law and had to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation, they
shall not be entitled for arrears of salary.
However, in view of Regulation 31 they will
deem to have continued in service up to the
age of 60 years. In their case, the appellants
shall treat the age of superannuation at 60
years, fix the pay accordingly and re-fix the
retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc.
On such calculation, they shall be entitled for
arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting
the amount already paid."

6. Sri I.P. Singh, however, does not
dispute the factual matrix of the case but
2 All] Smt. Sheela Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
821
he submits that the petitioner had retired
in 2009 and admittedly he had not filed
any writ petition or approached any court
of law and, therefore, directions in the
judgement of Jaswant Singh would
wholly prevail and no relief can be
granted to the petitioner. He has referred
to the judgement of the Supreme Court in
the case of Brijesh Kumar and others vs.
State of Haryana & Others, Special Leave
Petition Nos.6609-6613 of 2014, which
matter arose out of an award under the
Land Acquisition Act and the Supreme
Court relying upon its earlier decisions in
the cases of State of Karnataka v. S.M.
Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267, Jagdish Lal
v State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 2366
and Rup Diamonds v. Union of India AIR
1989 SC 674 has rejected the claim of the
petitioners on the ground that they had
never agitated their matter before any
court of law and had approached the
Court only after the decision rendered by
the Court in other cases, therefore, the
claim was time barred and no relief could
be granted.

7. I have considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties.

8. The only question in the present
case is whether the claim of the petitioner
was barred by laches and no relief could
be granted by this Court in view of the
judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh
(supra). However, the judgment of
Jaswant
Singh
has
already
been
considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra)
which was a case relating to the
employees of the Jal Nigam and it is only
thereafter that the Supreme Court has
given directions in para-38 of that
judgment.

9. In this view of the matter, it is not
in dispute between the parties that the
case of the petitioner squarely falls in
category (b) of para 38 of the directions
given by the Supreme Court in the case of
Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra).

10. This writ petition is, therefore,
allowed in the light of the directions given
by the Supreme Court in paragraph 38 (b)
of the judgement in the case of Dayanand
Chakrawarty (supra).

11. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4979 of 2009

Smt. Sheela Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ashok
Khare, Sri R.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri G.K. Singh, Sri V.K. Singh

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Withholding
post retiral benefit-petitioner while in
service-punishment-withholding
two
increments by Board-writ against dismissed
special appeal by management pendingargument that in absence of statutory
provision
to
continue
disciplinary
proceeding
even
after
retirement-due
pendancy of special appeal makes no
difference-held-order denying benefit by
DIOS
quashed-consequential
direction
given.