# Rama Shankar Singh and others v. U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-08-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18340 of 2004
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-shankar-singh-and-others-v-u-p-rajya-vidhyut-utpadan-nigam-and-others-40811
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921Chapter III-Reg. 21-as amended by
Notification
6.1.2005-Retirement
age
principal, teachers working in recognized
Inter College-run by U.P.R.V.U. Nigamwhether their service conditions shall be
governed
by
the
provisions
of
Intermediate Education Act 1921 or by
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Siksha Seva
Niyamawali 1995? Held-provisions of
Regulation 21 Chapter III shall govern
the recognized educational Institutions
also-teacher
and
the
Head
of
the
institution will retire at the age of 62
years as amended by Notification dated
6.1.2005.

Held: Para 21 & 23

In this view of the matter, I am clearly of
the view that Regulation 21 Chapter III
as
amended
by
notification
dated
6.1.2005
is
applicable
to
Teachers,
Principles and Head Masters of all
recognized institutions whether aided or
unaided and otherwise contention of the
learned counsel for the respondents is,
therefore rejected.

In the result the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned notice dated 12.1.2004
communicating the petitioners regarding
their retirement on attaining the age of
58 years is quashed and the respondents
are directed to permit the petitioners to
continue in service in accordance with
Regulation
21
Chapter
III
of
the
Regulations framed under Intermediate
Education Act. 1921 as amended by
notification dated 6.1.2005.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1930 O.P.C.-120, AIR 1951 SC-41, AIR
1953 SC-58, AIR 1957 SC-121, AIR 1964 SC1230, AIR 1969 SC-530, AIR 1988 SC-782, 4
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
MIA-170 (187) (P.C.), AIR 1960 SC-122, 1897
AC-22 (HL), AIR 1964 SC-1230, AIR 1969 SC513, AIR 1970 SC-755, AIR 1975 SC-43, AIR
1989 SC-922, AIR 1991 SC-772, AIR 2002 SC1351, AIR 1967 SC-997, 1960 (3) AFR-353,
AIR 1978 SC-548

## Text

1 All] Rama Shankar Singh and others V. U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam and others
153
of the Paper Book. During course of the
argument, the learned counsel for the
claimant/respondent chosen not to place
or refer even the said affidavit from
record before the I Court. In this view of
the matter there is practically no evidence
to show that the claimant/respondent has
incurred such a huge expenses on account
of change of residence and place of
busineses, which may be incidental to
such change.

17. Looking to the facts and
circunstances of the case, this Court is of
the opinion that a sum of Rs.10,000/- by
way of token should be awarded towards
expenses which was incidental to change
of residence and place of business. The
judgment of the reference court is
modified
accordingly.
In
place
of
Rs.50,000/- granted under Section 23 (1)
of the Act it is held that the claimants are
entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- only.

18. In the result the appeal is
allowed in part and the judgment of the
court below is modified by reducing the
amount of compensation awarded under
Section 23 (1) Clause 4 and 5 to Rs.
10,000/- only. The remaining part of the
judgment is confirmed. No order as to
costs.

Appeal Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18340 of 2004

Rama Shankar Singh and others

...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.,
Lucknow and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vinod Sinha
Sri S.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.D. Khare
Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra

U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921Chapter III-Reg. 21-as amended by
Notification
6.1.2005-Retirement
age
principal, teachers working in recognized
Inter College-run by U.P.R.V.U. Nigamwhether their service conditions shall be
governed
by
the
provisions
of
Intermediate Education Act 1921 or by
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Siksha Seva
Niyamawali 1995? Held-provisions of
Regulation 21 Chapter III shall govern
the recognized educational Institutions
also-teacher
and
the
Head
of
the
institution will retire at the age of 62
years as amended by Notification dated
6.1.2005.

Held: Para 21 & 23

In this view of the matter, I am clearly of
the view that Regulation 21 Chapter III
as
amended
by
notification
dated
6.1.2005
is
applicable
to
Teachers,
Principles and Head Masters of all
recognized institutions whether aided or
unaided and otherwise contention of the
learned counsel for the respondents is,
therefore rejected.

In the result the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned notice dated 12.1.2004
communicating the petitioners regarding
their retirement on attaining the age of
58 years is quashed and the respondents
are directed to permit the petitioners to
continue in service in accordance with
Regulation
21
Chapter
III
of
the
Regulations framed under Intermediate
Education Act. 1921 as amended by
notification dated 6.1.2005.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1930 O.P.C.-120, AIR 1951 SC-41, AIR
1953 SC-58, AIR 1957 SC-121, AIR 1964 SC1230, AIR 1969 SC-530, AIR 1988 SC-782, 4
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
MIA-170 (187) (P.C.), AIR 1960 SC-122, 1897
AC-22 (HL), AIR 1964 SC-1230, AIR 1969 SC513, AIR 1970 SC-755, AIR 1975 SC-43, AIR
1989 SC-922, AIR 1991 SC-772, AIR 2002 SC1351, AIR 1967 SC-997, 1960 (3) AFR-353,
AIR 1978 SC-548

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal. J.)

1. Six petitioners working as
teachers at Obera Inter College, Obera,
District Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to
as "College" in short) have approached
this
Court
against
the
respondents
complaining against their action of
retiring the petitioners at the age of 58
years, through, as contended by the
petitioners, they are entitled to continue in
service till they attain the age of 62 years.
Consequently, notice dated 12.1.2004
(Annexure-l to the writ petition) issued by
the Deputy -General Manager, U.P. Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as "UPRVUNL" in short),
working as Manager of the College
informing the petitioners that they would
retire on 30.6.2004 on attaining the age of
58 years has been challenged in this
petition.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to
the present writ petition are that the
College was established as a government
school by Irrigation Department of the
State Government, but after establishment
of Thermal Generation Units at Obera, the
aforesaid institution was taken over by
U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter
referred
to
as
"UPSEB" in short)
sometimes in the year 1969 and since
thereafter,
is
being
run
by
the
management, who are the officers of the
Obera Thermal Power Station, which
earlier was owned by UPSEB and since
14.1 .2004 by UPRVUNL. The college is
a duly recognized educational institution
by the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, UP., Allahabad
under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act of 1921 ) and the petitioners
are employed as teachers in the college
having
been
appointed
on
1.7.1969,1.7.1969,9.8.1972,25.6.1967,1.9.
1971 and 1.8.1968 respectively. Though
as per the petitioners, the conditions of
service of the teachers of the College are
governed by the Regulations framed
under the Act of 1921, wherein the age of
retirement was earlier 60 years and now
62 years, but the College management,
are acting under the impression that the
petitioner are governed by the provisions
applicable to the employees of erstwhile
UPSEB framed under Section 79(C) of
Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (herein after
referred to as Act of 1948), wherein the
age of retirement is 58 years and,
therefore, have proceeded to retire them
on attaining the age of 58 years, which,
according to the petitioners is illegal,
since,
they
arc
governed
by
the
Regulations framed under the Act of 1921
and are entitled to continue till they attain
the age of 62 years.

3. On behalf of the respondents;
counter affidavit has been filed stating
that earlier the College was being
managed by the UPSEB and now by
UPRVUNL .The employees of the college
are governed by the U.P. Rajya Vidyut
Parishad Shiksha Seva Nimavali. 1995
framed by erstwhile UPSEB under
Section 79(C) of Act of 1948, wherein the
age of retirement is 58 years and,
therefore, the petitioners have rightly been
sought to retire on attaining the age of 58
years. It has also been stated that the
Board for its employees had statutory
power to frame regulations with respect to
1 All] Rama Shankar Singh and others V. U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam and others
155
recruitment conditions of service, which
includes the teachers and other staff of an
educational institution of the UPSEB and
statutory provisions having been made
under section 79(C) of the Act of 1948,
the same cannot be made subservient to
the provisions of the State Act like Act of
1921, or the regulations framed there
under and, therefore, the reliance placed
by the learned counsel for the petitioners
upon Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the
Regulations, under the Act of 1921 is
clearly misplaced and provisions made
under the Act of 1948 would override the
provisions of Act of 1921.

4. The petitioners have also filed a
supplementary
affidavit
as
well
as
rejoinder
affidavit
wherein
besides
reiterating the stand taken in the writ
petition, it has also been stressed that the
college in question is receiving grant-inaid under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools
and Intermediate Col1eges (Payment of
Salaries
of
Teachers
and
others
Employees)
Act,
1971
(hereinafter
referred to as "Act of 1971" in short), as is
apparent from the letter dated 30.1.2006
issued
by
the
finance
controller,
Directorate of Education, U.P., Allahabad
addressed to District Inspector of Schools,
Varanasi and Sonbhadra communicating
sanction of grant of Rs.48,20,830/- for the
College under the Act of 1971. Further, a
copy of the amendment notification dated
6.1.2005 has been appended, whereby
Regulation
21
Chapter
III
of
the
Regulations framed under the Act of 1921
has been amended by substitution altering
the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years.

5. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil
Kumar Mehrotra for the respondents.

Though the respondents have taken a
general stand that the Regulations framed
under the Act of 1921 are not at all
applicable to the petitioners and they are
governed by the statutory provisions
framed by the erstwhile UPSEB in
exercise of its power under Section 79(C)
of the Act of 1948, but it is not disputed
by the learned counsel for the parties that
this question has already been decided in
a number of cases, wherein UPSEB and
UPRVUNL were also parties, holding that
the conditions of service of the teachers
working in the recognized institution
managed by the UPSEB or UPRVUNL
would be governed by the Regulations
framed under Act of 1921 and not under
the Regulations framed under Act of
1948. Some of the judgments are also on
record, namely, Writ Petition No. 24222
of 1999 (Daroga Singh and others Vs.
UPSEB and others) decided on 4.10.2002,
Writ Petition No.35792 of 1996 (Smt.
Shaila Garg Vs. UPSEB and another) and
other
connected
matter
decided
on
30.5.1997 and Writ Petition No.9244 of
1995
(Ravindra
Nath
Pandey
Vs,
Secretary, UPSEB and others) decided on
10.9.1999. Of course, all the judgments
have been rendered by Hon'ble Single
Judges and it is informed by Sri Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the respondents that in
many matters, Special Appeals have been
filed, which arc pending before this Court,
but the judgments of the Hon'ble Single
Judges holding that the Regulations
framed under the Act of 1921 are
applicable
to
the
teachers
of
the
recognized college of erstwhile UPSEB
have not been stayed in the pending
Special Appeals. The nature of the interim
orders passed in Special Appeal are that
the beneficiaries in case loose the matters
in Special Appeals will have to refund the
entire salary to the employers for the
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
period subsequent to the date, when they
attain the age of 58 yeas. Thus, the
situation, as it stands today, is that all the
judgments of the Hon'ble Single Judges
have presidential value and are binding on
all the coordinate benches. I also do not
find any reason to take a different view
and, therefore, have no hesitation in
holding that for the purpose of age of
retirement,
the
provisions
under
Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the Act of 1921
will govern the age of retirement of the
petitioners.

6. However, the matter does not rest
here, since the present case has a further
complication, which has arises on account
of amendment of Regulation 21 Chapter
III of the Regulations framed under the
Act of 1921 enhancing the age of
retirement
from
60
to
62
years.
Ordinarily, since the amendment made by
the
notification
dated
6.1.2005
substituting existing Regulation 21 of
Chapter III by a new one, also would have
governed by the same- principle as
declared in the various judgments of this
Court holding the aforesaid Regulation to
be applicable to the employees of the
recognized college of the respondents, but
the learned counsel for the respondents
have tried to persuade this Court not to
follow the aforesaid principle for the
purpose of amended Regulation. 21 in the
case in hand.

7. Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for
the respondents, drew attention of the
Court to the Government order dated
4.2.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition)
issued by the Principal Secretary, U.P.
Government addressed to the Director of
Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad
and Lucknow communicating its decision
to extend the age of retirement of the
teachers working on the post created by
the State Government in non governmentaided institutions and, therefore, conveyed
its approval for amendment of the
Regulation
increasing
the
age
of
retirement from 60 to 62 years for such
teachers. He further drew attention of the
Court to the letter dated 6.1.2005
appended to the notification amending
Regulation 21 which also provides that it
pertains to the alternation in age of
retirement of the teachers working in non
government aided secondary institutions.
Relying upon the aforesaid government
order and letter, Sri Mehrotra proceeded
to contend that the approval of the
Government
to
amend
regulation
pertaining to age of retirement of teachers
was restricted to the category of only such
teachers, who were working against the
posts created by the State Government in
non government aided institutions and
therefore, the aforesaid amendment is not
applicable
to
all
the
recognized
institutions whether aided or unaided. He
further submitted that the College in
question managed by the UPSEB and now
UPRVUNI is a non-government unaided
institution and, therefore the aforesaid
amendment would have no application to
the College of the respondents. To
buttress his submission, Sri Mehrotra
relied upon the principles statutory
interpretation permitting external aid, i.e.
statement of objects and reasons, notings,
attending circumstances preceding the
amendments etc. and placed reliance on
the following law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.

(1) Henrietta Muir Edwards and others
Vs. Attorney General of Canada and
others (AIR 1930 PC 120),
1 All] Rama Shankar Singh and others V. U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam and others
157
(2) Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vs. The
Union of' India and others (AIR
1951 SC41),
(3) D.N. Banerji Vs. P.R. Mukherjee and
others (AIR 1953 SC 58),
(4) Hariprasad Shivshanker Shukla and
another Vs. A.D. Divelkar and others
(AIR 1957 SC 121),
(5) R.L. Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others (AIR1964 SC 1230),
(6) M/s Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand
and others Vs. Secretary, Madras
Chillies,
Grains
and
Kirana
Merchants
Workers
Union
and
another (AIR 1969 SC 530) &
(7) M/s Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India and others (AIR 1988
SC 782).

8. On the contrary, Sri Vinod Sinha
disputing
the
aforesaid
submission
vehemently
contended
that
the
amendment of Regulation 21 is nothing
but a substitution of the existing provision
by a new one. A bare reading of amended
Regulation21 does not show that it is
applicable to a limited category of the
teachers Therefore; he submits that the
petitioners are entitled to be governed by
the amended Regulation 21of Chapter III
of' the Regulations framed under the Act
to 1921.

9. The short controversy, therefore,
involved in the case as is whether
Regulation 21 Chapter III as amended by
notification dated 6. 1 .2005 is applicable
to all the categories of recognized
institution or not including the college run
by the respondents.

Before
adverting
to
the
rival
submissions, it would be appropriate to
reproduce Regulation 21 Chapter III of
the Regulations as it was prior to its
amendment
vide
notification
dated
6.1.2005.
"21.
Superannuation
age
of
Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and
other employees, would be 60 years. If
above said superannuation age of any
Principal, Headmaster and Teacher falls
on any date in between 2nd July and 30th
June, except in the conditions when he
himself, before two months of the date of
superannuation, furnishes in writing the
information for not seeking extension of
service, extension of service up to 30th
June shall be deemed to be conferred on
him so that after summer vacation,
substitute can be arranged in the month of
July. In additions to this, extension of
service could be granted only in such
special cases, which may be decided by
the Stale Government.
If date of superannuation of any
clerk of fourth-class employee falls in the
middle of any month, his extension of
service would be deemed to be given up to
the last date of that month. But if the date
of appointment of any employee falls on
the first date of any month, he shall he
retired on the last date of the preceding
month."

10. The State Government issued
order-dated 4.2.2004communicating its
approval
for
amendment
of
the
Regulation permitting enhancement in the
age of retirement of teachers from 60 to
62 years, but in the aforesaid Government
Order, it clearly mentions that the said
decision has been taken in respect to the
teachers working on the post created by
the State Government in non government
aided secondary educational institutions.
It also direct that all Government Orders
issued in the past shall be deemed to be
amended to the extent as provided in the
aforesaid Government Order and also
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
directed the Director of Education to. take
action for amendment of Regulation 21
under Intermediate Education Act, 1921
within 30 days from the date of issuance
of the aforesaid Government Order. It
would be appropriate to reproduce the
relevant extract of the Government Order:
"'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k
x;k gS fd v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed
fo|ky;ksa esa 'kklu }kjk l`ftr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zjr
v/;kidksa dh orZeku vf/ko"kZrk vk;q esa o`f) dj nh tk;saA

vr% Jh jkT;iky egksn; rkRdkfyd izHkko ls
v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa
'kklu }kjk l`ftr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zjr v/;kidksa dh
orZeku vrf/ko"kZrk vk;q dks 60 o"kZ ls c<k dj 62 o"kZ
fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA QyLo:i 58
o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsok fuo`fRr ykHk
vc 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij rFkk 60 o"kZ dh
vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsok fuo`fRr ykHk 62 o"kZ dh
vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij vuqeU; gksaxsA

Jh jkT;iky egksn; ;g Hkh vkns'k iznku djrs gSa fd
mls f'k{kk 01 tqykbZ 2003 ds i'pkr~ vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ
dj l=kar ykHk ij py jgs gSa mUgsa Hkh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q
laca/kh ykHk iznku fd;k tk;sxkA

bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa fuxZr leLr 'kklukns'k mDr
lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;saxs rFkk mudh 'ks"k 'krsZa ;Fkkor
jgsaxhA

m0iz0 b.VjehfM;V ,twds'ku ,DV ds laxr fu;eksa esa
vko';d la'kks/ku dh dk;Zokgh 'kklukns'k tkjh gksus ds 30
fnu ds vUnj lqfuf'pr dj yh tk;sxhA "

11. It appears that subsequently
there was some further correspondence
between the Government and Education
Department where after vide notification
dated 6.1.2005,though in the subject it
mentions about amendment in the age of
retirement of teachers of non government
aided institution, but in the contents part
of the notification, it states that the
Hon'ble Governor has approved the
amendment of Regulation 21,Chapter III
framed under U.P. intermediate Education
Act, 1921 in the manner as contained in
the Annexure to the said notification and
the amended Regulation 21 reads as
under:
"vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kidksa dk vf/ko"kZ o; 62
o"kZ gksxkA QyLo:i 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk ij feyus okys
lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk vc 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij rFkk
60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk
62 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij vuqeU; gksaxsA ;fn fdlh
vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid dk mi;qZDr vf/ko"kZ o; 2 tqykbZ vkSj
30 twu ds e/; esa fdlh frfFk dks iMrk gS rks mls] ml
n'kk dks NksMdj tcfd og Lo;a lsok foLrj.k u ysus gsrq
fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk ls 2 ekg iwoZ ns
nsa] 30 twu rd lsok foLrj.k Lo;eso iznku fd;k x;k
le>k tk;sxk rkfd xzh"ekodk'k ds mijkUr tqykbzZ esa
izfrLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr lsok&foLrj.k
dsoy mUgha fof'k"V n'kkvksa esa iznku fd;k tk ldsxk] tks
jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;A vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds
fo"k; esa vf/kfu;e esa fn;s x;s izkfo/kku ;Fkkor jgsaxsaA"

12. A bare perusal of Regulation 21
as amended vide notification dated
6.1.2005 does not warrant any restricted
application to the category of teachers. A
plain reading of Regulation 21 as
amended would show that all the teachers
and principals, who were liable to retire at
the age of 58 years would now retire at
the age of 60 years and those who were to
retire at the age of 60 years would now
retire at the age of 62 years and would be
entitled for all the retiral benefits,
accordingly. It also provides that if the
teachers and principals retire on a date
between 2nd July to 30th June and have not
expressed their desire against extension,
would continue till 30th June i.e. end of
the Session. Regulation 21 amended by
the notification-dated 6.1.2005substituted
the existing Regulation 21. It is not
disputed that Regulation 21 as it stood
prior to notification-dated 6.1.2005 was
applicable to all teachers and principles of
recognized institutions whether aided or
unaided. After substitution of Regulation
21 vide notification-dated 6.1.2005, there
is no other provision in respect to
1 All] Rama Shankar Singh and others V. U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam and others
159
superannuation age of principles, head
masters and teachers of the recognized
institutions whether aided or unaided. The
very first obstacle in accepting the
contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents is that if the interpretation as
suggested by him is followed, it would
result as if now, on and after 6.1.2005,
there is no provision or Regulation framed
under Intermediate Education Act, 1921
providing age of superannuation of
Principles, Head Masters, Teachers and
other employees of recognized unaided
institutions. In do not find any reason,
therefore, to accept a construction, which
not only restrict the plain and simple
application of the statute but also create
vacuum leaving no provision in respect to
age
of
retirement
of
teachers
of
recognized,
unaided
non-government
institutions relegating them to the mercy
of the management, particularly, when
there is no compulsion to take such a view
from a bare reading of statute itself.
The Cardinal rule of construction is
to find out the intention of the legislature
in the words used by the legislature itself.
The Court, in order to find out the
intention of the statute framing authority
must look into the statute itself without
any assistance from any other external
factor unless there is some doubt or
ambiguity in the construction of the
statute itself. It would be appropriate to
remind in the words of Lord Brougham in
Robert Wigram Crawford V.Richard
Spooner [4 MIA 179 (187) (PC)]- "If the
Legislature did intend that which it has
not expressed clearly, much more, if the
I.egislature intended some thing very
different, if the I.egislature intended
pretty nearly the opposite of what is said,
it is not for judges to invent something,
which they do not meet within the words
of the text (aiding their construction of the
text always, of course, by the contest).

13. The Apex Court in S. Gurmej
Singh Vs.. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon
[AIR 1960 SC 122 (128)] also held that
"the Courts are not to busy themselves
with 'supposed intention' or with 'the
policy underlying the statute'. But must
construe the statute from plain meaning of
the words used therein. In Aron Soloman
Vs A.Soloman & Co. Ltd. [(1897) AC 22
(38) (HL)], Lord Watson observed- "In a
court of law or equity, what the
Legislature intended to be done or not to
be
done
can
only
be
legitimately
ascertained from that which it has chosen
to enact, either in express words or by
reasonable and necessary implication."
The aforesaid passage has been quoted
with approval by the Apex Court in R.L.
Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR
1964 SC 1230 (1244)], Shahdara (Delhi)
Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs.
Workers Union [AIR 1969 SC 513
(759)], Hansraj Gordhandas Vs H.H.
Dave [AIR 1970 SC 755 (759)], Sri
Umed Vs. Raj Singh [AIR, 1975 SC 43
(63/64)], Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.
P, Vs. Super Cotton Bowl Refilling
Works [AIR 1989 SC 922 (930)]. State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. G.S. Ball and
Flour Mills [AIR 1991 SC 772 (785)]
and Harbhajan Singh Vs. Press Council
of India [AIR 2002 SC 1351 (1356)].

14. No doubt, in case of any doubt,
if it arises from a bare reading of statute
about
the correct intention
of the
legislature or if the plain meaning of the
statute results in some such consequences,
which the legislature could not have
intended or for any other similar reason, it
is permissible to look for external aid,
namely, statement of objects and reason,
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
attending circumstances before enactment
of
the
statute
and
other-
relevant
materials, but where there is no ambiguity
at all whatsoever and the meaning of the
statue is clear and simple there is no
requirement of any such assistance. In my
opinion, it would not be appropriate to
restrict the normal extent and application
of the statute by referring to attending
circumstances or notings or executive
letters which are claimed to be the reason
for such enactment

15. The rules of interpretation are
not rules of laws and are not to be
followed like the rules enacted by
legislature in an Interpretation Act as
observed
by
the
Apex
Court
in
Superintendent and Remembrancer of
Legal
Affairs,
West
Bengal
Vs.
Corporation of Calcutta [AIR 1967 SC
997]. The principles for interpretation
serve only as a guide.

16. In all the cases relied by learned
counsel for the respondents, the Courts
have clearly said that in case of doubt or
ambiguity, the external aid may be looked
into and the intention of the legislature
may be discern there from However, in
none of the case, it has been stated that if
the statue is otherwise clear from a plain
and simple reading thereof, still by taking
recourse to external material, its extent
and application should be or can be
narrowed down.

17. Regulations 21 Chapter III as it
enacted
provided
the
age
of
superannuation of the teachers and staff of
a recognized institution whether aided or
unaided. Earlier the age of retirement was
58
years,
which
was
subsequently
enhanced to 60 years. By notificationdated 6.1.2005, the entire Regulation 21
Chapter III has been amended by
substitution and the age of superannuation
has been increased to 62 years. It may be
that
for
increasing
the
age
of
superannuation, the State Government
might have impelled to increase the age
by taking in to account the case of
recognized
aided
non
government
institutions, but in the actual amendment
made in the Regulation, it has not
restricted the amended provision to a
particular set of teachers or staff, but the
entire provision has been amended
without using any word suggesting
restricted application.

18.

As
noticed
above,
the
amendment by substitution has the effect
of wiping out the earlier Regulation 21
Chapter III from statute and adding a new
provision.
Admittedly,
the
earlier
provision prescribed age of retirement for
teachers and other staff of all recognized
institution whether aided or unaided. If
the manner in which learned counsel for
the
respondents
has
suggested
the
interpretation of amended Regulation 21
of Chapter III is accepted, it would result
as if there is no age of retirement for the
teachers and staff of recognized unaided
institutions meaning thereby either they
would continue to serve irrespective of
any restriction of age of retirement or
their continuance in service would depend
upon the sweet will of the management.
Reason for omitting statutory provision
providing age of retirement of recognized
unaided
institution
is
also
not
understandable. The Court has no reason
to believe that the State Government
intended not to provide any age of
retirement for the staff of recognized
unaided non-government institutions. It is
well settled that a casus omtissus cannot
be supplied by the Court. There is no
1 All] Rama Shankar Singh and others V. U.P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam and others
161
presumption that a casus omissus exists
and language permitting the Court should
avoid creating a casus omissus where
there is none. It would be appropriate to
recollect the observations of Devlin, L.J.
in Gladstone Vs. Bower [(1960) 3 All ER
353(CA)]-"The court will always allow
the intention of a statute to override the
defects of wording but the Court's ability
to do so is limited by recognized canons
of interpretation. The Court may, for
example,
prefer
an
alternative
construction, which is less well fitted to
the words but better fitted to the intention
of the Act. But here, there is no
alternative construction; it is simply a
case of something being overlooked. We
cannot legislate for casus omissus.

19. Apex Court in Bangalore Water
Supply Vs.. Rajappa [AIR 1978 SC 548
(561)] quoted with approval the following
observation of Lord Simonds in the case
of Magor & St.. Mellons R.D.C Vs.
Newport Corporation [(1951) 2 All ER
839 (841)]-
"The duty of the Court is to interpret
the words that the Legislature has used.
Those words may be ambiguous, but,
even if they are, the power and duty of the
Court to travel outside them on a voyage
of discovery are strictly limited."

20. It would be appropriate at this
stage to remind another principle that a
Court cannot supply a real casus omissus,
it is equally evident that it should not so
interpret a statue as to create casus
omissus when there is really none.
Therefore, the general proposition laid
down in the various judgments sought to
be relied by the learned counsel for the
respondents admits no doubt but, in my
view, the said principles have no
application in the case in hand, since, the
Regulation 21 Chapter III as amended by
notification dated 6.1.2005 admits no
ambiguity, doubt etc and, therefore, it
does not require any external aid for
interpretation for the extent of its
application to the concerned persons.

21. In this view of the matter, I am
clearly of the view that Regulation 21
Chapter III as amended by notification
dated 6.1.2005 is applicable to Teachers,
Principles and Head Masters of all
recognized institutions whether aided or
unaided and otherwise contention of the
learned counsel for the respondents is,
therefore rejected.

22. Once it is found that Regulation
21
Chapter
III
as
amended
by
notification-dated 6.1.2005 is applicable
to a recognized unaided non-government
institution rest of the matter is already
covered by the various earlier judgments
of this Court providing that the teachers
of recognized educational institutions of
the respondents are also governed by the
Regulations framed under Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 including provision
regarding age of retirement, subject of
course, to the decisions of the Court in the
pending Special Appeals

23. In the result the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned notice dated
12.1.2004 communicating the petitioners
regarding their retirement on attaining the
age of 58 years is quashed and the
respondents are directed to permit the
petitioners to continue in service in
accordance with Regulation 21 Chapter
III of the Regulations framed under
Intermediate Education Act. 1921 as
amended by notification dated 6.1.2005.

There shall he no order as to costs.
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Petition Allowed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30697 of 2006

Smt. Savitri Devi and others ...Tenant/
Petitioners
Versus
Chandra Dhar Mishra ...Landlord/
 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri O.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri A.K. Mehrotra

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972Section
21
(1)
release
applicationbonafide
need
established-during
pendancy
of
release
application-No
effort made by tenant for searching
alternate
accommodation-concurrent
finding of facts recorded by courts blowNo illegality or infirmity shown-can not
be interfered by writ court.

Held: Para 16 & 20

Thus, it is evident that the Prescribed
Authority as well as the appellate Court
have recorded concurrent findings of
fact, which are neither perverse nor
irrational.
The
Courts
below
have
considered each and every aspect of the
case while releasing the accommodation,
in dispute, in favour of the respondentlandlord.

The concurrent findings of facts recorded
by the Court below do not suffer from
any
illegality
or
infirmity
requiring
interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution.
Case law discussed:
UPRJ-208?, 1983 ARC-416, 1979 ARC-212,
1989 UPRJ-485, AIR 1984 (1) 347, 1984 ARC
(1)-239, 1978 ARC-314, 1976 ARC-328, 2003
(6) SCC-675, 2004 (1) ARC-613, 1999 (1)
ARC-324, 2006 (1) ARC-588

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. The petitioners have challenged
the validity and correctness of judgments
and orders dated 17..2.2004 and 4.5.2006
(appended
as
Annexures 3
and
4
respectively to the writ petition) passed by
Prescribed
Authority/Additional
Civil
Judge (Senior Division) Court no. 2 and
Additional District Judge/Special Judge
(S.C./S.T.
Act)
Kanpur
Nagar
respectively.

2. The dispute giving rise to the
instant
writ
petition
relates
to
accommodation under the tenancy of the
petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-,
consisting
of
five
rooms,
kitchen,
varandah, court-yard, laterine/bathroom
situated on the first floor of premises no.
108/27-A, Lenin Park, P. Road, Kanpur
Nagar.

3.

Respondent-landlord
moved
release application under Section 21(1)(a)
of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'),
which was registered as case no. 45 of
1997. It was alleged in the release
application that Sri Allu Mal and Sri Daya
Ram were joint tenants of the premises, in
dispute since 1960. On the death of Sri
Allu Mal, who had shifted to Gauhati in
1960, Sri Ganga Ram son of Late Sri
Daya Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners
inherited
the
tenancy.