# Ravi Kumar Vashistha v. The District Magistrate, Bijnor and others - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 84 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-01-29 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 155 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Kirhsna - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-vashistha-v-the-district-magistrate-bijnor-and-others-40077 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226- Petitioner after 7 days leave remained absent for about 19 yrs.- not permitted to join in view of provisions Pra 2014 (2) Indian Railway establishment. Tribunal directed reinstatement alongwith arrear of salary- held not proper- delay deprived the remedy- petitioner employed between 1964-68- retrenched. between 1973-79- reported his duty on 1.3.89- not entitled for any relief. Held- Para 8 It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in drawing an adverse inference because the petitioner had not produced the respondent's appointment letter. It is further alleged in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the Tribunal committed an illegality in granting the benefit of pay etc. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that no reasonable and plausible explanation was given by the respondent no. 1 for his long absence. The petitioner has further alleged that since the respondent no. 1 has failed to produce any record in this regard he was asked to produce documents relating to his appointment but he failed to do so. Hence it is urged that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the respondent no. 1 and the Tribunal committed a serious illegality in not doing so. It is alleged in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that no record of the petitioner is available with the Railways since he was absent after 1972 and filed a petition before the Tribunal only in 1992 after a gap of 20 years. In view of the Railway Boards circular the record of more than ten years are weeded out. It is alleged in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the observation of the Tribunal that since ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 years held the age of retirement is 60 years. Held- Para 4 In this view of the matter, the age of the employees governed by the said 1982 Rules shall be treated to be 60 years and the petitioner is entitled to retire only after attaining the age of 60 years. (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Petitioner has claimed that the provision of Rule 18 of Sahkari Sangrah Kosh Niymavali, 1982 are applicable to the employees of Collection branch of Cooperative Department regarding retirement. The employees of State Government have been granted benefit of amendment in Fundamental Rule 56 (3). 3. The said Rules provide that such provisions which are not incorporated in the said 1982 Rules, the rules applicable to the State Government employees, shall be applicable. It is argued that the age of retirement has not been provided in the said 1982 Rules. Therefore, the age of retirement as is applicable under Fundamental Rules, is 60 years which provides that a Government servant will retire at the age of 60 years, will be applicable to the employee governed by 1982 Rules. The counter affidavit says that the status of the employees governed by 1982 Rules are not like that of Government Servants. In view of this argument on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid stand in the counter affidavit does not come in the way of the petitioner to claim the age of retirement to be 60 years. 4. In this view of the matter, the age of the employees governed by the said 1982 Rules shall be treated to be 60 years and the petitioner is entitled to retire only after attaining the age of 60 years. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 31.12.2001 retiring the petitioner before the age of 60 years, is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue upto 60 years of age. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.1.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KIRHSNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 155 of 2003 Ravi Kumar Vashistha ...Petitioner Versus The District Magistrate, Bijnor and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: J.P. Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Indian partnership Act- S 25 Recovery proceeding against partnership firm one of the for partners approached before High court disputing his liability as towards entire amount- held -every partner is responsible for entire amount jointly and severally need not interfere with proceeding Held para 3 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Ravi Kumar Vashishtha Vs. The D.M., Bijnor and others 85 Under section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 every partner is liable jointly as well as severally for all the acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Hence there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. The petitioner is challenging the recovery of entertainment tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only one of the 4 partners of the firm M/s National Cable Network against which recovery has been issued whereas his share is only 48.7%. He prays that only 48.7% of the entertainment tax due should be recovered from the petitioner. 2. Under section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 every partner is liable jointly as well as severally for all the acts of the firm done while he is a partner. Hence there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD NOV. 12, 2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51288 of 2000 Union of India and others ...Petitioners Versus Sri Roshan Lal Madhok and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.K. Gaur Sri M. Prakash Counsel for the Respondents: Constitution of India, Article 226- Petitioner after 7 days leave remained absent for about 19 yrs.- not permitted to join in view of provisions Pra 2014 (2) Indian Railway establishment. Tribunal directed reinstatement alongwith arrear of salary- held not proper- delay deprived the remedy- petitioner employed between 1964-68- retrenched. between 1973-79- reported his duty on 1.3.89- not entitled for any relief. Held- Para 8 It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in drawing an adverse inference because the petitioner had not produced the respondent's appointment letter. It is further alleged in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the Tribunal committed an illegality in granting the benefit of pay etc. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that no reasonable and plausible explanation was given by the respondent no. 1 for his long absence. The petitioner has further alleged that since the respondent no. 1 has failed to produce any record in this regard he was asked to produce documents relating to his appointment but he failed to do so. Hence it is urged that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the respondent no. 1 and the Tribunal committed a serious illegality in not doing so. It is alleged in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that no record of the petitioner is available with the Railways since he was absent after 1972 and filed a petition before the Tribunal only in 1992 after a gap of 20 years. In view of the Railway Boards circular the record of more than ten years are weeded out. It is alleged in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the observation of the Tribunal that since Rs.962/- was lying with the