# Shambhoo Nath Gupta v. District Asstt. Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.P., Jaunpur and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 83
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 934 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shambhoo-nath-gupta-v-district-asstt-registrar-cooperative-societies-u-p-40076
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

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

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Udai Veer Singh Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others
83
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 934 of 2003

Udai Veer Singh Yadav and others

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sudhir Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Act 226 Validity of
Certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan Prayag held certificate is not
recognized after 1967 hence no right can
be claimed.

Held- Para 3

In Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical
practitioners vs. Director of Health 1997
(11) SCC 687 it was held that the
certificate of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is
not recognized after 1967. Hence the
petitioners have no right to do medical
practice
on
the
basis
of
the
said
certificate.
Case law discussed:
1997 (ii) SCC 687

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. We have heard learned Counsel
for the parties.

2. The petitioner held certificates
from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag,
and they claim that they have the right to
practice as medical practitioners on the
strength of these certificates. They have
prayed for a mandamus directing the
respondents not to interfere with their
peaceful practice as medical practitioners.

3. In Delhi Pradesh Registered
Medical practitioners vs. Director of
Health 1997 (11) SCC 687 it was held
that the certificate of Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan is not recognized after 1967.
Hence the petitioners have no right to do
medical practice on the basis of the said
certificate.

4. Following the aforesaid decision
of the Supreme Court this petition is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7857 of 2002

Shambhoo Nath Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
District
Asstt.
Registrar
Cooperative
Societies, U.P., Jaunpur and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Sahkari Sangh Kosh Niyamavali -1982-
Rule 18 Age of retirement of the
employees
of
collection
branch
of
cooperative Department- Rule provides-
rule applicable to the Govt. Employees
shall be applicable under fundamental
rule 56 (3) age of retirement provides 60
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