# Vinod v. State and 4845 of 2003 Naratan

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 621
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4274 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-v-state-and-4845-of-2003-naratan-40138
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri R.K. Saxena
S.C.

Legal Remembrance Manual-7.08 (6)
Extention
of
age
limit-Petitioner
completed 60 yrs. as D.G.C. claming
continuance beyond 62 yrs. Pursuance of
G.O.
Dt.
11.12.02-
whether
the
extension can be claimed as a matter of
Right ? held-No.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Held Para 9 & 12

We see no illegality in the impugned G.O.
dated 11.12.2002. No doubt the note of
para 7.08 (6) of the L.R. Manual
contemplates continuation of service of a
government counsel beyond 60 years but
that does not mean that they have a
right to continue forever. It is open to
the government to fix the age limit and
they have fixed it at 62 years and we see
no illegality in the same.

Thus
there
is
no
illegality
in
the
impugned G.O. dated 11.12.2002. This
writ petition and all other similar writ
petitions
pending
in
this
Court
challenging the G.O. dated 11.12.2002
reducing the age limit of 62 years are
hereby dismissed.

## Text

3 All] Ram Nihor Singh V. Principal Secretary(Law), Sachivalaya and others
621
Secretariat,
Lucknow
shows
that
representation of the petitioner dated
04.01.2003 was received n the concerned
section
on
06.01.2003.
The
State
Government
sent
copies
of
the
representation and parawise comments
thereon to U.P. Advisory Board, vide its
letter dated 07.01.2003 and to the Central
Government, vide letter dated 07.01.2003.
He examined the representation of the
petitioner on 07.01.2003 the Special
Secretary examined it on 08.01.2003 and
submitted to the Secretary. The Secretary
examined it on 08.01.2003 and submitted
it to the higher authorities for final
decision by the State Government. After
due consideration, the State Government
finally rejected on 09.01.2003.

No counter-affidavit has been filed
on behalf of Central Government.

49. Though para 13 of counter
affidavit of Sri Amar Pal, Deputy Jailor,
District Jail, Rampur disclosed that
representation of the petitioner dated
04.01.2003 has been rejected by the
Central Government and information was
sent on 07.02.2003 and same was
received on 10.02.2003, which was served
on the petitioner. But it is not clear as to
when the representation was received by
Central Government and when it was
finally rejected. Thus, the delay in
disposal of representation of the petitioner
by the Central Government has not been
explained.

50. In view of our findings on the
above points in Writ Petition No. 4842
and 4846, there was un-explained delay
on the part of Central Government in
deciding representation of the petitioner.
Therefore,
continued
detention
of
petitioner Rajesh and Subhash have
rendered invalid. We also find that there
is no force in the writ petition of other
petitioners Sachan, Vinod and Nauratan.

Accordingly, writ petitions no. 4839
of 2003 Sachin Vs. State, 4840 of 2003
Vinod vs. State and 4845 of 2003 Naratan
vs. State have no force and are;
accordingly, dismissed Writ petition No.
4842 of 2003 Rajesh Vs. State and 4846
Subhash vs. State are, accordingly,
allowed. Continued detention of above
petitioners is held illegal and respondents
are directed to release them (Rajesh and
Subhash) to set at liberty forth with unless
want to be detained in connection with
some other case.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4274 of 2003

Ram Nihor Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Principal Secretary (Law), Sachivalaya
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri T.P. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Saxena
S.C.

Legal Remembrance Manual-7.08 (6)
Extention
of
age
limit-Petitioner
completed 60 yrs. as D.G.C. claming
continuance beyond 62 yrs. Pursuance of
G.O.
Dt.
11.12.02-
whether
the
extension can be claimed as a matter of
Right ? held-No.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Held Para 9 & 12

We see no illegality in the impugned G.O.
dated 11.12.2002. No doubt the note of
para 7.08 (6) of the L.R. Manual
contemplates continuation of service of a
government counsel beyond 60 years but
that does not mean that they have a
right to continue forever. It is open to
the government to fix the age limit and
they have fixed it at 62 years and we see
no illegality in the same.

Thus
there
is
no
illegality
in
the
impugned G.O. dated 11.12.2002. This
writ petition and all other similar writ
petitions
pending
in
this
Court
challenging the G.O. dated 11.12.2002
reducing the age limit of 62 years are
hereby dismissed.

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

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
G.O.
dated
11.12.2003 Annexure 13 to the writ
petition and the impugned order dated
1.1.2003 and 13.1.2003 Annexure 11 and
1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has
also prayed for a mandamus directing that
he should be allowed to continue
functioning as D.G.C. (Civil) till the age
of 65 years.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was appointed as
A.D.G.C. (Civil), Allahabad by order
dated
23.9.1978
and
was
given
appointment letter dated 6.10.1978 vide
Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is
alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition
that he continued to work as such by
virtue of his satisfactory service as
recommended by the District Judge and
District Magistrate in pursuance of
various renewal orders issued from time
to time.
3. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the
writ petition that a permanent vacancy of
D.G.C. (Civil) arose and the petitioner
was asked to take over charge vide letter
dated 3.2.1990 Annexure 2 to the writ
petition. He was appointed as full fledged
D.G.C. (Civil) by order dated 31.7.1990
Annexure 3 to the writ petition. This
tenure was extended till 31.12.1991 vide
Annexure 4 to the writ petition and
thereafter he was given extensions from
time to time.

4. The petitioner's service came to
an end on his completion of his age at 60
years on 2.1.2001 against which he filed
writ petition no. 5160 of 2001 which was
allowed vide judgment dated 18.5.2001
copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ
petition.

5. It may be mentioned that the note
to paragraph 7.08 (6) of the L.R. Manual
states:

"The renewal beyond 60 years of age
shall depend upon continuous good work,
sound integrity and physical fitness of the
Counsel."

6. It appears that it was on the basis
of that note that the Division Bench
decided writ petition no. 5160 of 2001
Ram Nihore Singh vs. State of U.P., 2001
A.G.J. 896 holding that the petitioner's
termination of service at the age of 60
years was illegal since the note to para
7.08 (6) itself contemplates continuing the
service beyond 60 years.

7. However, by the impugned G.O.
dated 11.12.2002 it has been stated that
the term of D.G.C. (Civil) can be
continued till the age of 62 years provided
he is physically fit as certified by the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Raghuraj Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
623
Chief Medical Officer and has done good
work
as
certified
by
the
District
Magistrate.

8. Thus the maximum age limit of
D.G.C./A.D.G.C. is now 62 years as
mentioned in the G.O. dated 11.12.2002.
Since the petitioner completed 62 years
on 1.1.2003 his term was not extended.

9. We see no illegality in the
impugned G.O. dated 11.12.2002. No
doubt the note of para 7.08 (6) of the L.R.
Manual contemplates continuation of
service of a government counsel beyond
60years but that does not mean that they
have a right to continue forever. It is open
to the government to fix the age limit and
they have fixed it at 62 years and we see
no illegality in the same.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that in the earlier
G.O. dated 22.12.2001 Annexure 10 to
the writ petition the maximum age limit
was 65 years but now it has been curtailed
to 62 years. He has submitted that this is
illegal
because
this
deprived
the
government counsels of their vested right
to continue till 65 years. We do not agree.
It is open to the government to fix the age
limit as to when the term of a government
counsel shall come to an end. The G.O.
dated 22.12.2001 is an executive order
and one executive order can be modified
by another executive order under Section
21 of the General Clauses Act and Article
166 of the Constitution. Fixing of age
limit at 65 years was not done by any
legislative enactment but only by a G.O.,
and hence it can be modified or revoked
by another G.O. and that is what has been
done in this case. We do not agree that
any accrued right has been taken away by
the impugned G.O. dated 11.12.2002.
11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner stated that some government
counsels have continued as such even
after the age of 62 years. If that is so their
term will be deemed to have come to an
end forthwith provided they have crossed
the age of 62 years.

12. Thus there is no illegality in the
impugned G.O. dated 11.12.2002. This
writ petition and all other similar writ
petitions
pending
in
this
Court
challenging the G.O. dated 11.12.2002
reducing the age limit of 62 years are
hereby dismissed. The interim order if
any is hereby vacated.

13. Let the Registrar General of this
Court send copy of this judgment
forthwith to the Law Secretary, U.P. and
all District Judges in the State.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 7.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19655 of 2003

Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.P. Singh
Sri Rajiv Gupta
Sri Dilip Kumar
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri J.R. Singh Tomar

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in