# Sitaram Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 560
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-08-13
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 6046(S/S) of 2012
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sitaram-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42808
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Transport Corporation Act, 1950-Section 45readwith U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Services
Regulation 1981-Regulation-37-Retirement
age-58 years-as per provision of U.P.
Fundamental(Amendment)Rules
2002-by
notification 27.06.2002 govt. employee shall
retire on 60 years-as per direction of courtretirement age shall by abide by decision of
govt.-not govt. decided to enhance the age
of retirement of corporation employee at 60
years-held-in terms of Court's direction
petitioner shall deemed to continue in
service till the age of 60 years-with all
consequential benefits-petition allowed.

Held: Para-28
Taking the facts and circumstances of this
case mentioned above and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
court finds that a case has been made out
by the petitioners. Although the permission
has been given with prospective effect but
the petitioners case was already covered by
the court's order. As per the court's order
passed in W.P. No. 527 of 2012 ( Sitaram
Singh and two others) dated 30.1.2012. The
said order has already been quoted in the
body of the order. Since the retirement of
the petitioner was subject to the decision of
the
State
Government
and
State
Government has taken a positive decision
on extending the age of retirement from 58
to 60 years, hence, the case of the
petitioner should be included in the benefit
given to others vide order dated 24.7.2012.

Case Law discussed:
(1994) 3 SCC 1; W.P. No. 527 of 2012.

## Text

560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The aforesaid statement of the
prosecutrix not only shows that both the
revisionists are living together as husband
and wife after performing marriage with
their free will and consent but also shows
the apprehension of prosecutrix that due
to prestige issue, her family members may
eliminate her. Killing a girl for securing
honour of family is very common in India
especially in rural areas.

11. In such situation, it was neither
safe nor proper for the Magistrate to send
the girl to Nari Niketan.

3.Even assuming for the sake of
arguments, that the prosecutrix was minor
at that time, she should not have been sent
to Nari Niketan against her wishes in
wake of the clear law as laiddown earlier
by the Division Bench of this Court in the
3 decisions cited above.

12. For the abovesaid reasons, the
revision is allowed. The impugned order
dated 13.8.2013 is set aside. The opposite
party nos. 1 and 2 are directed to release
the prosecutrix forthwith, if not wanted in
any other case, and send her to her
husband's (revisionist no. 1 Udai Veer)
home under proper security.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Writ Petition No. 6046(S/S) of 2012
connected with W.P. No. 5352 of 2012, W.P.
No. 6109 of 2012, W.P. No. 6169 of 2012,
W.P. No. 5721 of 2012, W.P. No. 7551 of
2012 and W.P. No. 7534 of 2012

Sitaram Singh... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Miss Vina Sinha

Transport Corporation Act, 1950-Section 45readwith U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Services
Regulation 1981-Regulation-37-Retirement
age-58 years-as per provision of U.P.
Fundamental(Amendment)Rules
2002-by
notification 27.06.2002 govt. employee shall
retire on 60 years-as per direction of courtretirement age shall by abide by decision of
govt.-not govt. decided to enhance the age
of retirement of corporation employee at 60
years-held-in terms of Court's direction
petitioner shall deemed to continue in
service till the age of 60 years-with all
consequential benefits-petition allowed.

Held: Para-28
Taking the facts and circumstances of this
case mentioned above and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
court finds that a case has been made out
by the petitioners. Although the permission
has been given with prospective effect but
the petitioners case was already covered by
the court's order. As per the court's order
passed in W.P. No. 527 of 2012 ( Sitaram
Singh and two others) dated 30.1.2012. The
said order has already been quoted in the
body of the order. Since the retirement of
the petitioner was subject to the decision of
the
State
Government
and
State
Government has taken a positive decision
on extending the age of retirement from 58
to 60 years, hence, the case of the
petitioner should be included in the benefit
given to others vide order dated 24.7.2012.

Case Law discussed:
(1994) 3 SCC 1; W.P. No. 527 of 2012.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, Sri
Rajendra Singh Chauhan learned counsel
2 All] Sitaram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561
for the peititoner and learned Standing
Councel for the state, Sri C.S. Pandey and
Ms. Veena Sinha for the U.P.S.R.T.C.

2. Petitioner has made following
prayer :

"a. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari thereby quashing
the clause 3 of the impugned order dated
24.7.2012 ( contained as Annexure no. 1
to the writ petition) wherein it is provided
that this order will be effective with
immediate effect and the last para of the
order dated 26.7.2012 (contained in
Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition)
wherein it is said that the order will be
effective with immediate effect, with
respect to the petitioners only.

b. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite parties treat the petitioners as if
he was in continuous service on 24.7.2012
ignoring the clause 3 of the order dated
24.7.2012 and the last para of the order
dated 26.7.2012.

c. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari thereby quashing
the
impugned
Notice/office
dated
19.8.2011 issued by the opposite party no.
4.

d. issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus, commanding and
directing the opposite parties to allow the
petitioners to continue in service till he
attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 31.1.2014
and to pay him salary each and every month
when it falls due and give all the
consequential benefits to the petitioners.

d1. issue a writ, order or direction in
nature of certiorari thereby quashing the
impugned
order
dated
16.4.2012
(contained as Annexure no. 5 to the writ
petition) with respect to petitioners only.

e. 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.

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

3. The petitioner has argued that he
has been deliberately denied the benefit of
order dated 24.7.2012. By this order age
of retirement in the department has been
enhanced from 58 to 60 years with
prospective effect.The enhancement of
retirement age of the petitioners was
subject to the decision taken by the State
Government, as per the orders dated
24/30.1.2012 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner. Now the State Government has
taken a decision on the basis of the letter
dated 29.4.2012 and its G.O. dated
20.12.2011. On these two dates the
petitioners were in service hence the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of
order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the State
Government but the State Government
has denied the benefit of order dated
24.7.2012 to the petitioners by saying that
the orders will be prospective in nature.

4.

The
matter
relating
to
enhancement of age of superannuation of
the employees of the Corporation from 58
to 60 years had been placed before the
Board of Directors of the Corporation at
Lucknow vide Resolution No. 3448, it
was considered by the Board of Directors
of the Corporation at Lucknow in its 168
meeting on 11.4.2008 and was duly
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approved by them. As such Corporation
and as such petitioners were entitled to
continue in services till they attain the age
of 60 years.

5. Petitioner has further argued that
in
pursuance
to
the
letter
dated
20.12.2011,
in
U.P.
Housing
and
Development Board, Jal Nigam, Bridge
Corporation
&
other
corporations
retirement age has been enhanced but in
the Department of the petitioner the same
has not been given effect even after
completion of all the formalities. In other
corporations the benefit of enhancement
of retirement age has been been given
with retrospective effect say Handloom
Corporation.

6. As per the date of birth of the
petitioners, they would have attained the age
of superannuation on 31.1.2014, whereas the
petitioners have been retired at the age of 58
years i.e. w.e.f. 31.1.2012 which is not
sustainable in the eyes of law as the State
Government has been pleased to grant
approval to enhance the retirement age of the
corporation's
employees
following
the
Government Order dated 20.12.2011 and the
letter dated 29.4.2012 written by the
Managing Director of the Corporation to the
Principal Secretary.

7. The U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation
was
created
by
the
notification
dated
31.5.1972
w.e.f.
1.6.1972 invoking the provision of
Section
3
of
the
Road
Transport
Corporation Act, 1950 for providing
efficient,
adequate,
economic
and
properly coordinated transport services in
the State of U.P. and by means thereof the
employees of U.P. Roadways the State
Government came to be merged with the
Corporation.

8. A Government Order dated
5.7.1972 was issued and thereby it was
provided that whenever the Corporation
shall frame service regulations for the
employees in exercise of power under
section 45 of the Road Transport
Corporations Act, 1950, it shall include
the assurance of the State Government
that the service conditions of the
corporations employees shall not be
inferior to that of the State Government
employees and further the span of service,
seniority, promotion, pay fixation, leave
and financial benefits shall remain same
as it would have been if they would have
continued under the State Government as
State employees of U.P. Roadways.

9. The Corporation framed Service
Regulations for its employees known as
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Employees Service Regulation - 1981 (
this
regulation
was
framed
while
exercising the powers under section 5(2
(c) of the Road Transport Act, 1950) for
regulating the conditions of the services
of thee employees appointed in the
Corporation. It is specified that prior to
framing of aforesaid regulations, the
services
of
the
employees
of
the
corporation were governed by the rules,
governing service conditions of the
employees of State Government. It is
admitted that as on date the petitioners are
governed by the aforesaid regulations.
Regulation 37 provides that the retirement
age will be 58 years.

10. In exercise of powers under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India,
an amendment in Fundamental Rule- 56
of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, contained
in Financial Handbook, Volume, Part II,
Part II-IV, which came to be known as the
Uttar Pradesh Fundamental (Amendment)
2 All] Sitaram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
Rules, 2002 was incorporated under the
notification dated 27.6.2002, whereby age
of
retirement
of
the
Government
employees was enhanced from 58 to 60
years.

11. The approval of the Board of
Directors has got the Statutory Force
because the Regulations have been made
as per the provision of the Road Transport
Act, 1950 and as per section 45 (2)(c) the
regulations have been made and the
following the regulations the Board of
Directors have taken a decision to
enhance the age of superannuation from
58 to 60 years then there is no scope to
deny
the
benefit
of
extension
of
retirement age from 58 to 60 years to the
petitioners from the date 20.12.2011 or
29.4.2012 by the State Government ( the
only thing which requires to be done that
is the grant of approval) because the
government on the basis of letter dated
29.4.2012 and the G.O. dated 20.12.2011
has taken the decision to enhance the
retirement age.

12. Board of Directors in its meeting
no. 168 which was held on 11.4.2008
decided that the retirement age of the
employees of the corporation be enhanced
from 58 to 60 years. Managing Director
of the Corporation had sent the approval
granted by the Board of Directors of the
Corporation
to
Principal
Secretary,
Transport Department, Government of
U.P., Lucknow for enhancing the age of
retirement of the employees of the
Corporation from 58 to 60 years.

13.

After
decision
of
State
Government the opposite party no. 2 vide
letter dated 20.12.2011 had informed to
the Chairman / M.D./ C.E.O. of all the
corporations regarding the enhancement
of the retirement age. In pursuance to the
aforesaid letter dated 20.12.2011, in U.P.
Housing and Development Board, Jal
Nigam, Bridge Corporation the retirement
age has been enhanced but in the
Department of the petitioner the same has
not
been
given
effect
even
after
completion of all the formalities.

14. Uttar Pradesh State Control over
Public Corporation Act, 1975 framed by
the U.P. Act No. 41 of 1975, provide that
every
statutory
body
established
/
constituted under any U.P. Act shall
discharge of its function guided by such
directions on question of policy, as may
be given by the State Government. Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. is also
public Sector Corporation but the State
Government
discriminated
with
the
department of petitioner as in the Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and other
corporations, the age of retirement of the
employees has been enhanced from 58
years to 60 years.

15. On 8.7.2011 and 18.7.2011 the
Hon'ble Court passed an order that the
employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam may be
permitted
to
continue
as
contract
employee till they completes 60 years. On
3.9.2012 petitioner made representation to
the authorities to enhance the age by
giving the benefit of letter dated 24/26-72-2012.

16. On 30.3.2012 Government of U.P.
Special Secretary wrote a letter to the
Managing Director regarding enhancement
of age. Managing Director wrote a letter to
the Principal Secretary that the Board of
Directors has already taken a decision to
enhance the retirement age from 58 to 60
years. Managing Director wrote a letter on
29.4.2012 to the Principal Secretary.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. A general letter was issued by
the Principal Secretary regarding grant of
dearness allowance to all the corporations.
On 17.4.2012 an order was passed by the
Principal Secretary for enhancement of
age of the Handloom Corporation from 58
to 60 years with retrospective effect.

18. On 24.7.2012 an order was
passed to the effect that the Corporation
can enhance the retirement age of its
employees from 58 to 60 years.

19. The Corporation in pursuance of
the order dated 24.7.2012 accorded the
benefit given by the State Government
regarding enhancement of retirement age.

20. A perusal of Annexure no. 1,
issued by the Principal Secretary Sri B.S.
Bhullar dated 24.7.2012 addressed to the
Managing Director, U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation,
Lucknow
(
hereinafter referred to as 'Nigam') shows
that
the
government
has
granted
permission for extending the age of
superannuation of regular and full time
employees of Nigam. It is interesting to
note that this has been done with
reference to the letter of the Managing
Director bearing no. 37GCHQ/12592
CHEO/84 dated 29.4.2012. It has been
mentioned that the financial burden
arising out of this extension of age of
retirement will be borne out by the Nigam
itself. No financial assistance will be
provided by the State Government and
this scheme shall pay effective from
immediate effect.

21. Annexure no. 2 is clearly an
'office order' issued by Sri Alok Kumar,
Managing Director dated 26.7.2012 i.e.
exactly after two days from the order of
Principal Secretary. This order also
clearly mentions that the permission has
been granted by the government with
reference to the letter written by he
Managing
Director
dated
29.4.2012
(supra).

22. Annexure no. 5 is a government
order issued by Sri B.S. Bhullar, Principal
Secretary dated 16.4.2012 with regard to
the extension of age of superannuation
from 58 to 60 years in the Nigam. This
rejection order has been passed on the
various references made by the Managing
Director to the Principal Secretary e.g.
dated 23.2.2011, 5.11.2012, 10.2.2012,
30.3.2012 and 13.4.2012. It is important
to note that last letter has been sent on
13.4.2012 and the rejection order has been
passed three days' later on 16.4.2012 by
the Principal Secretary. The Principal
Secretary
has
rejected
the
recommendation
of
the
Managing
Director on the ground that the financial
condition of the Nigam was not good with
reference to the financial year 2009-10
and 2010-11. It has been mentioned that
since the Nigam was running in loss,
hence, there was no good ground to
extend the age of the employees for
superannuation from 58 to 60 years.

23. Comparative study of Annexure
no. 1 and 5 gives contradictory picture.
Vide Annexure no. 5 the case has been
rejected on 16.4.2012 and on the last
recommendation
letter
written
on
13.4.2012. Vide Annexure no. 1 dated
24.7.2012 the age of superannuation has
been allowed to be extended from 58 to
60 years on the recommendation of the
same Managing Director vide his letter
dated 29.4.2012. The recommendation
made on 13.4.2012 is the ground for
rejection and the recommendation dated
29.4.2012 is the ground of permission.
2 All] Sitaram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
565
The Managing Director and the Principal
Secretary are the same and both the
recommendations are of April, 2012 i.e.
the same month and the year.

24. If the court lifts the veil some
interesting facts come to the fore. It
transpires that there was a contempt
petition pending against the Principal
Secretary Mr. B.S. Bhullar for noncompliance of the orders passed by this
court in W.P. No. 527 of 2012 ( Sita Ram
Singh and two others) vide order dated
30.1.2012. Following orders were passed
which has been annexed as Annexure no.
4 to the writ petition. The order is as
follows :

"Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Notice on behalf of opposite party
no.1 has been accepted by the learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel,
while
Sri
Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel has
accepted notices on behalf of opposite
parties no. 2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the present case is covered
by
the judgment
and
order
dated
24.01.2012 passed in Writ Petition
No.435 (S/S) of 2012, Saleem Akhtar vs.
State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid
order reads as under:-

"The
issue
with
respect
to
enhancement of age of the employees of
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is
pending before the State Government
since 05.01.2012. The learned counsel for
the petitioner informs that the Election
Commission
of
India
has
already
informed the Chief Election Officer of the
State that the Commission has no
objection with respect to take decision by
the
State
Government
regarding
enhancement of age of the employees of
the Corporation, but no propaganda/
advertisement be made.

As the matter is pending before the
State Government regarding enhancement
of
age
of
the
employees
of
the
Corporation, accordingly the Principal
Secretary, Transport Department, Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow is hereby directed to
examine and take decision on the
recommendation sent by the Managing
Director, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation for enhancing the age of the
employees and take decision within one
month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.

The retirement of the petitioner will
be subject to the decision of the State
Government.

The present writ petition is disposed
of finally in terms of the judgment &
order dated 24.01.2012, passed in Writ
Petition No. 435 (S/S) of 2012, Saleem
Akhtar vs. State of U.P. & others.

The retirement of the petitioners will
be subject to the decision of the State
Government.

With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the writ petition is disposed of
finally. "

25. By this order the court had directed
the opposite parties to take a decision on the
recommendation sent by the Managing
Director of the Nigam for enhancement of
the age of the retirement of employees within
one month from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of that order. When this order
was not complied with within the stipulated
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
period contempt petition was moved and
orders were passed on 29.3.2012 for
compliance of the resolution dated 5.1.2012
passed by the Board of Directors. It was
directed that in case the decision has not been
taken in compliance of the court's order
respondent no. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary shall
appear on 17.4.2012.

26. When the Principal Secretary was
summoned he rejected the resolution /
recommendation of the Managing Director
on 16.4.2012 in great haste with malice
towards the petitioner as well as contempt
petitioners. The contempt petition naturally
failed and the endeavour of the petitioner
was thwarted. When the temperature cooled
down in the office of the Principal Secretary
the same officer granted the permission for
extending the age of superannuation after
three months on the recommendations made
in the month of April itself. It was made
prospective so that benefit may not accrue to
the petitioners in a way it was a attempted to
teach them a lesson.

27. In the case of S.R. Bommai Vs.
Union of India & others (1994) 3 SCC 1,
the Hon. Supreme Court has held that
"when the Act is alleged to be malafide
and there is no reason except which
occasion to exercise the said powers, the
said Act should be considered to be exfacie arbitrary and malafide. In those
circumstances, the Court has to interject
itself, otherwise, it would result into
failure and / or miscarriage of justice."

28. Taking the facts and circumstances
of this case mentioned above and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
court finds that a case has been made out by
the petitioners. Although the permission has
been given with prospective effect but the
petitioners case was already covered by the
court's order. As per the court's order passed
in W.P. No. 527 of 2012 ( Sitaram Singh and
two others) dated 30.1.2012. The said order
has already been quoted in the body of the
order. Since the retirement of the petitioner
was subject to the decision of the State
Government and State Government has
taken a positive decision on extending the
age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, hence,
the case of the petitioner should be included
in the benefit given to others vide order dated
24.7.2012.

29. The writ petition is, thus,
allowed.

30. The petitioners will be treated to
have retired after attaining the age of 60.
If they have already completed the age of
60 years they will be entitled to the salary
and other benefits including allowances
till they have attained the age of 60 years.
They will be treated to be in service
during this period. The benefit will only
be available to the persons who are
included in this bunch of writ petitions.

31. The order dated 24.7.2012
(contained as Annexure no. 1 to the writ
petition)
the
order
dated
26.7.2012
(contained in Annexure no. 2 to the writ
petition) shall be quashed to the effect which
denies the benefit to the petitioners by being
prospective in nature. This prospectiveness
shall remain intact for others who are
governed by that government order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05. 2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8730 of 2014.