# Shiv Shanker Tiwari v. Director of Agriculture, U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 645
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44599 of 1998
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-shanker-tiwari-v-director-of-agriculture-u-p-and-others-40145
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Fundamental Rule 1987-Rule 56 (i)-
Retirement-challenge made on ground
whether retirement Notice attaining the
age of Superannuation is correct?

Held- Yes Rule 56(1) provides the age of
retirement extended from 58 year to 60
year appointed before 5 th November
1985 on regular & permanent postpetitioner appointed on temporary post
after the cut off date.

Held- Para 6

From the records the petitioner has not
been able to conclusively prove that he
was a permanent Beldar working in
permanent capacity on a permanent
post. The appointment of the petitioner
being 11.3.1988, which is undisputed,
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

## Text

3 All] Shiv Shanker Tiwari V. Director of Agriculture, U.P. and others
645
that till today the documents relied in
support of the charges levelled against the
petitioner have not been shown to the
petitioner.

(11) The disciplinary proceedings have
illegally been delayed by the respondents
themselves and were not concluded
within reasonable time and when the
petitioner has already retried from service
in July, 2000 the entire proceedings
deserve to be quashed by this Court, in
the light of the observations given in the
Judgement of N. Radhakishan (supra) and
also in Shatrughan (supra) with the further
direction to the respondents that the
petitioner should be treated in continuous
service for all practical purposes and
should be paid arrears of 75% salary of
his past salary. The petitioner has already
retired from service on 31.07.2000 his
post-retirement benefits is also directed to
be finalised.

In view of the above observations
writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44599 of 1998

Nazra

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

U.P. Fundamental Rule 1987-Rule 56 (i)-
Retirement-challenge made on ground
whether retirement Notice attaining the
age of Superannuation is correct?

Held- Yes Rule 56(1) provides the age of
retirement extended from 58 year to 60
year appointed before 5 th November
1985 on regular & permanent postpetitioner appointed on temporary post
after the cut off date.

Held- Para 6

From the records the petitioner has not
been able to conclusively prove that he
was a permanent Beldar working in
permanent capacity on a permanent
post. The appointment of the petitioner
being 11.3.1988, which is undisputed,
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

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

1. This petition has been preferred
for
quashing
the
order
dated
17/18.11.1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ
petition) whereby the petitioner was
informed that he would retire on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31.12.98.
The petitioner was class IV (Group-D)
employee working in the office of
Executive Engineer Lok Nirman Vibhag
District Bulandshahar. He was retired by
the impugned order 18.11.98 on attaining
the age of 58 years. The date of birth
recorded in his service book was
30.12.1940. By Government Order dated
28.7.1987 U.P. Fundamental Rules were
amended. The amendment was introduced
in
the
U.P.
Fundamental
First
Amendment Rule, 1987 and on that basis
Rule 56 (i) was amended which provides
that Group-D employees appointed before
1985 are to retire from service on the
attaining the age of 60 years. The
amended G.O. dated 28th July, 1987 is as
under:

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003

"mRrj izns'k] ljdkj
foRr 1⁄4lkekU;1⁄2 vuqHkkx&2
la[;k th&2&496@njk&5341⁄4191⁄257
y[kuÅ% fnukad 28 tqykbZ] 1987
&&&&
vf/klwpuk
izdh.kZ
lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 309 ds ijUrqd }kjk iznRr
'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds jkT;iky Qkbusf'k;y gS.M cqd
[k.M&nks] Hkkx&nks ls pkj esa fn;s x;s Q.Mkes.Vy :Yl esa
la'kks/ku djus dh n`f"V ls fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrs gSa%&
mRrj izns'k Q.MkesUVy 1⁄4izFke la'kks/ku1⁄2 fu;ekoyh]
1987

laf{kIr
uke
vkSj izkjEHk
1&1⁄411⁄2 ;g fu;ekoyh mRrj izns'k
Q.MkesUVy
1⁄4izFke
la'kks/ku1⁄2
fu;ekoyh] 1987 dgh tk;sxhA
 1⁄421⁄2 ;g 5 uoEcj] 1985 ls izo'Rr
gqbZ le>h tk;sxhA
Q.MkesUVy :y
56 dk la'kks/ku
2& QkbusfU'k;y gS.Mcqd [akM&nks Hkkx&2
ls pkj esa fn;s x;s mRrj izns'k
Q.MkesUVy :Yl ds fu;e 56 esa
[k.M1⁄4,1⁄2 ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr
[kaM j[k fn;k tk;sxk] vFkkZr &

"5 1⁄4d1⁄2&bl fu;e ds vU; [k.Mksa esa vU;Fkk micfU/kr ds
flok; izR;sd ljdkjh lsod ml ekg ds ftlesa ;g
vB~Bkou o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djsa vfUre fnu vijkUg esa
lsokfuo`Rr gksxkA mls vf/ko"kZrk ij lsokfuo`fRr ds fnukaWd ds
i'pkr ljdkj dh iwoZ Lohd`fr ls yksd vk/kkj ij ftls
vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk;sxk] lsok esa j[kk tk ldrk gS fdUrq
vfr fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds flok; mls lkB o"kZ dh vk;q ds
i'pkr lsok esa ugha j[kk tkuk pkfg,

ijUrq 5 uoEcj] 1985 ds iwoZ HkrhZ fd;k x;k vkSj
lewg "?k" in dks /kkj.k djus okyk dksbZ ljdkjh lsod ml
ekl ds ftlesa ;g lkB o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djsa] vafre fnu
vijkUg esa lsok ls fuo`Rr gksxkA
Li"Vhdj.k%& mi;qZDr ijUrqd mu ekeyksa ij ykxw ugha gksxk
tgkaW mDr ijUrqd esa fufnZ"V in@inksa dh izfrfLFkfr esa 27
Qjojh] 1982 ds i'pkr ifjorZu fd;k x;k gks vkSj
mPprj lewg ds in@inksa esa oxhZd`r fd;k x;k gksA"
1⁄421⁄2 [kaM 1⁄4[k1⁄2 fudky fn;k tk;xkA
vkKk ls]
ch-ds- lDlsuk]
izeq[k lfpoA"
2. This amended G.O. applies to a
regular permanent employee appointed on
Group-D post prior to 5th November 1985.

3. The petitioner has filed photocopy
of service book issued from the office of
the respondents under the signatures of
Assistant Engineer on 30.4.88 in which
the age of the petitioner was mentioned as
45 years as on 30.12.1985.As per
certificate issued by the Chief Medical
Officer and his date of birth was
30.12.1940. It is also apparent from the
perusal of the Photostat copy of the
service book that the petitioner's pay
fixation
was
done
under
the
Superintending Engineer's circular letter
No. 6824/EB-51/84 dated 17.1.1985. The
pay was fixed on 1.1.1984 and was
countersigned by the Assistant Engineer
of P.W.D. The petitioner claims that he
was
working
as
Beldar
(Group-D)
employee much before 1.1.84 and in these
circumstances his pay was fixed. He
further alleges that it means that he was
permanently
working
as
Group-D
employee in the department of the
respondents much before 1.1.84.

4. The last contention of the
petitioner is that he is an illiterate person
and can hardly put his signature. He does
not have knowledge about the conditions
of service in his appointment letter, which
has been appended as Annexure-CA-1
issued
on
11.3.1988.
From
the
appointment letter of the petitioner
Annexure-CA-1 it appears that he was
appointed on temporary basis. Clause-VI
of the terms and conditions of the
appointment letter was that he was
appointed
on
temporary
post.
The
appointment letter is as under:

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Vibhuti Prasad Mishra V. State of U.P. and others
647

"dk;kZy; vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk
izkUrh; [k.M yks0 fu0 fo0 cqyUn'kgjA
i=kaWd
@bZ0 Mcyw0

fnukaWd

dk;kZy; vkns'k

Jh utjk iq= Jh gdheqYyk dh fu;qfDr LFkkbZ fu;fer
pdnkj ds Jh ljrk jke jke yky iq= Jh jke Lo:i 1⁄4lsok
fuo`Rr1⁄2 ds fjDr in ij dk;kZy; vkns'k ds fnukaWd osrueku
305-5-330 n0jks0-6-360 n0jks0&6-390 esa dh
tkrh gSA bUgsa 'kklu }kjk le; le; ij mfpr fu;ekuqlkj
eagxkbZ HkRrk vkfn Hkh fn;k tk;sxkA

budh fu;qfDr fuEu 'krksZa ij dh tkrh gS A

1⁄411⁄2 budh lsok fdlh Hkh le; fyf[kr :i esa ,d ekg dk
uksfVl nsdj lekIr dh tk ldrh gS vkSj ;g uksfVl muds
}kjk fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh dks fn;k tk;sxk ;k fQj fu;qfDr
vf/kdkjh }kjk budks fn;k tk,xkA
1⁄421⁄2 bl uksfVl dh vof/k dks tks vf/kdkjh }kjk mudks
fn;k tk;sxk ;k muds }kjk vf/kdkjh dks fn;k tk;sxk ,d
ekg gksxhA izfrcU/k ;g gksxk fd ;fn vf/kdkjh pkgs rks
uksfVl ds iwoZ ,d ekg dh vof/k ds LFkku ij osru ns nsaA
bl ckr dh fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh dks NwV gksxh fd ;g fcuk
uksfVl ds dk;Z ls eqDr djsa ;k de vof/k dk uksfVl u nsus
ij mudks dqN Hkh gjtkuk ugha nsuk gksxk A
1⁄431⁄2 budh fu;qfDr ds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq dksbZ ;k=k
HkRrk ns; ugha gksxk A
1⁄441⁄2 budh lsok ;ksX; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds izek.k i= eq[;
fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds }kjk izkIr djds dk;Z xzg.k djus ds
le; izLrqr gksxkA
1⁄451⁄2 budh lsok ftys ds fdlh Hkh Hkkx esa LFkkukUrfjr dh
tk ldrh gS A
1⁄461⁄2 ;g vLFkkbZ in gSA
1⁄4g0 vkj0ds0 tSu1⁄2
vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk]
izkUrh; [k.M lk0fu0fo0]
cqyUn'kgjA
10-3-89"
5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents states that the appointment of
the petitioner was temporary and that he
had not been able to establish that his
appointment
on Group-D
post was
permanent and before 5th November,
1985, as such, he is not entitled to the
benefit of the G.O. dated 28.7.1987. He
further contends that the petitioner has not
disputed that he was appointed on
11.3.1988. He is not entitled to get any
retrial benefits treating him to be retired at
the age of 60 years pursuant to the
aforesaid G.O. dated 28.7.1987.

6. From the records the petitioner
has not been able to conclusively prove
that he was a permanent Beldar working
in permanent capacity on a permanent
post. The appointment of the petitioner
being 11.3.1988, which is undisputed, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

7. For all the reasons stated above,
the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit
of the G.O. dated 28.7.1987 and he has
rightly been retired on attaining the age of
58 years.

The petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21941 of 2000

Vibhuti Prasad Mishra
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in