# Radhey Lal Verma & Ors. 3743(S/S) 2014 v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 930
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-08-22
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 467 of 2014
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Arvind Kumar Tripathi (Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radhey-lal-verma-ors-3743-s-s-2014-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43039
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
jurisdiction-practice
&
procedureidentical
writ
petitions
challenging
validity of clause (3) of G.O. 24.07.2012pending-Single Judge can not single out
and
dismiss
the
petition-without
considering merit of case-held-order not
sustainable-set-a-side-with direction to
decide this petition along with identical
other bunch cases.

Held: Para-11
Admittedly, a bunch of Writ Petitions is
pending wherein validity of Clause-3 of the
impugned Government Order dated 24th
July, 2012 has been challenged. In the
instant case also, the petitioners-appellants
have challenged validity of Clause-3 of the
Government Order. In any case, dismissal
of Writ Petition at this stage, without
adjudicating the controversy involved, and
without recording a finding in terms of
reliefs claimed, seem to be unjustified.

Case Law discussed:
1995 Supp (1) SCC 461.

## Text

930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
account of long drawn litigation, we are
not inclined to give any liberty to the
department for initiating fresh inquiry as
it would amount to further harassment of
the petitioner, who either would be at the
fag end of his service or might have
attained
the
age
of
superannuation
recently.

23. The Special Appeal, Review
Petition and writ petition shall stand
allowed in above terms.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), J.

Special Appeal No. 467 of 2014

Radhey Lal Verma & Ors. 3743(S/S) 2014
 ..Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Indu Prakash Singh, Sri Deepak Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
jurisdiction-practice
&
procedureidentical
writ
petitions
challenging
validity of clause (3) of G.O. 24.07.2012pending-Single Judge can not single out
and
dismiss
the
petition-without
considering merit of case-held-order not
sustainable-set-a-side-with direction to
decide this petition along with identical
other bunch cases.

Held: Para-11
Admittedly, a bunch of Writ Petitions is
pending wherein validity of Clause-3 of the
impugned Government Order dated 24th
July, 2012 has been challenged. In the
instant case also, the petitioners-appellants
have challenged validity of Clause-3 of the
Government Order. In any case, dismissal
of Writ Petition at this stage, without
adjudicating the controversy involved, and
without recording a finding in terms of
reliefs claimed, seem to be unjustified.

Case Law discussed:
1995 Supp (1) SCC 461.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri I.P. Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and
Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Standing
Counsel.

2. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, we dispose of the
Appeal at the admission stage itself.

3. The question with regard to
retrospective effect of Government Order
dated
24th
July
2012
is
pending
adjudication before learned Single Judge,
whereby Clause-3 of the said Government
Order, has been impugned. In view of
Clause-3 of the Government Order, the
State Government has given effect to
Government Order with regard to age of
superannuation with prospective effect.

4. According to appellants' learned
counsel, attention of learned Single Judge
was invited to the fact that a bunch of writ
petitions are pending whereby Clause-3 of
the said Government Order has been
impugned.

5. A perusal of order dated 25th July
2014 passed by learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No. 3743 (S/S) of 2014
reveals that the learned Single Judge has
declined to apply Government Order
2 All]. Radhey Lal Verma & Ors. 3743 (S/S) 2014 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
931
dated 24th July, 2014 relying upon
Clause-3, which provides that the age of
superannuation has been increased to 60
years prospectively. Accordingly, the writ
petition was dismissed.

6. So far as the dismissal of the Writ
Petition on merits is concerned, it seems to
be based on sound principle of law on the
ground that the State Government had
applied
the
Government
Order
with
prospective
effect
with
regard
to
enhancement of age of superannuation.
However,
the
fact
remains
that
the
Government Order dated 24th July 2014 has
been impugned in a number of Writ
Petitions, which are pending adjudication in
this Court. This fact is apparent from order
dated 22nd July, 2014 passed in Writ Petition
No. 3614 (S./S) of 2014: Ram Pal & ors vs.
State of U.P. & ors., a copy of which was
filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition
preferred by the appellants before the learned
Single Judge.

7. A perusal of the reliefs claimed
by the appellants in the Writ Petition
preferred before the learned Single Judge
reveals that the appellants have also
challenged Clause-3 of the Government
Order
dated
24th
July
2012.
For
convenience, the reliefs claimed by the
appellants in the Writ Petition are
reproduced as under:

"a. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari thereby quashing
the retirement orders dated 30.06.2012
and 30.12.2011 issued by the opposite
parties
as
well
as
quash
the
implementation of letter dated 16.04.2012
(with respect to the petitioners only)
written by opposite party no.1 to opposite
party no.2 that the retirement age of the
corporation need not be enhanced.

b. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari thereby quashing
the clause 3 of the order dated 24.7.2012
where in it is provided that this order will
be effective with immediate effect and the
last para of the order 26.7.2012 where in
it is provided that this order will be
effective with immediate effect, with
respect to the petitioners only.

c. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus, commanding
and directing the opposite parties to
allow/treat the petitioners to continue in
service till he attains the age of 60 years
i.e. till 30.06.2014 and to pay him salary
each and every month when it falls due
and also give all the consequential
benefits to the petitioners.

d. issue any other suitable order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem, fit, just and proper under the
circumstances of the case in favour of the
petitioner.

e. Allow the writ petition of the
petitioners with cost. "

8. On the face of the record, not only
the
petitioners
claimed
extension
of
retirement date, but also prayed for
quashment of Clause-3 of Government
Order dated 24th July, 2012, which is
subject matter of dispute in bunch of
pending Writ Petitions in this Court.
Dismissal of the Writ Petition at this stage,
when admittedly a bunch of Writ Petitions
wherein identical Clause-3 has been
impugned is pending, seems to be
unjustified, that too without recording any
finding with regard to the validity of
Clause-3 of aforesaid Government Order.
We are also informed that a number of
bunch writ petitions were allowed by this
Court. Copy of one such judgment was also
placed on record before the learned Single
Judge as Annexure-13 to the Writ Petition.
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. It is well settled proposition of
law that at the admission stage, while
dealing with subject matter, the Court
should not single out the petitioner in case
other bunch of Writ Petitions is pending
with regard to adjudication of the same
controversy, that too, without recording a
finding on merit in terms of relief claimed
by the litigant. It is always appropriate for
the Court to proceed in terms of reliefs
and pleadings on record, and if, prima
facie, case is made out, and the facts and
circumstances
require,
then
the
respondent(s) may be called upon to file
their counter affidavit containing parawise
reply to the writ petition so that the
controversy involved may be adjudicated
on merits after providing opportunity of
hearing to the parties.

10. In this regard, we may aptly
reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Traders vs.
State of Haryana and Ors. Reported in 1995
Supp (1) SCC 461 wherein it was observed:

"In the matters of interlocutory
orders, principle of binding precedents
cannot be said to apply. However, the
need for consistency of approach and
uniformity in the exercise of judicial
discretion respecting similar causes and
the desirability to eliminate occasions for
grievances of discriminatory treatment
requires that all similar matters should
receive similar treatment except where
factual differences require a different
treatment so that there is assurance of
consistency, uniformity, predictability and
certainty of judicial approach."

11. Admittedly, a bunch of Writ
Petitions is pending wherein validity of
Clause-3 of the impugned Government
Order dated 24th July, 2012 has been
challenged. In the instant case also, the
petitioners-appellants
have
challenged
validity of Clause-3 of the Government
Order. In any case, dismissal of Writ
Petition at this stage, without adjudicating
the controversy involved, and without
recording a finding in terms of reliefs
claimed, seem to be unjustified.

12. In view of the above discussion,
the
appeal
deserves
to
be
allowed.
Accordingly, it is allowed. Impugned
Judgment and order dated 25th July, 2014
passed in Writ Petition No. 3743 (S/S) of
2014 is set aside. The Writ Petition is
restored to its original number and shall be
listed before the appropriate Bench in the
third week of September, 2014 along with
other similar bunch of Writ Petitions.
Officer-on-Special
Duty
(Classification)
shall find out and inform the Joint Registrar
(Listing) of this Bench with regard to all
pending identical matters so that the petitions
may be listed and decided simultaneously on
merits. Learned Chief Standing Counsel of
this Bench shall also provide list of all such
identical cases to the Joint Registrar
(Listing). In the meantime, learned counsel
for the respondents shall file counter affidavit
to the present Writ Petition No.3743 (S/S) of
2014 as well as other Writ Petitions.

13. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 900 of 2014

Usha Devi (Smt.) .Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents