AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Amit Dube, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Akhtar Ali for the Respondents.
All these appeals raise similar questions and have been heard together.
There is a delay in filing the special appeals. No counter affidavit has been filed to the Delay Condonation Application, although time was granted. Grounds taken in the affidavits is that after the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 27/2/2006, was obtained, the same was sent to the Law Officer, Legal Department of the Jal Nigam. The matter was placed before the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam, who after obtaining legal opinion of the counsel obtained necessary permission and thereafter the special appeal was prepared and filed. Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay.
Delay is condoned. Applications are allowed.
It is necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to the Special Appeal No. 743/2006 for deciding all these appeals.
The Special Appeal No. 743/2006 has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27/2/2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 53379/2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying on the judgment of the date in Writ Petition No. 3883/2003, Sukh Nandan Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam has come up in this appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27/2/2006, by which the writ petition filed by the Petitioner-Respondent has been allowed.
The Respondent-Petitioner was working as Class III employee in the U.P. Jal Nigam. The question which fell for determination in the writ petition was with regard to the age of retirement of the employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam as to whether they would retire at the age of 58 years or 60 years. The Respondent-Petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 31/7/2004. The writ petition was filed by the Respondent on 30/7/2005, i.e. after his retirement which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.
The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 27/2/2006, directed the employees to be entitled for payment of salary for the period up to the age of 60 years. The U.P. Jal Nigam has come up in the appeal against the said judgment.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant confines his submission to the effect that the writ Petitioners have filed the writ petition much after their retirement, hence they were not entitled to the benefits of salary as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 4790/2006, Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. It is submitted that similar issue came up for consideration before the apex Court in the Jaswant Singh''s case (supra) and the apex Court denied the relief for payment of salary to those employees who have approached the Court much after their retirement.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the following observation of the judgment of the apex Court in Jaswant Singh''s case (supra) which is quoted below:
Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the Court that will unnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years'' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the Court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others. We have been given a chart of those nine persons, who filed writ petitions and obtained stay and are continuing in service. They are as follows:
Shri Bhawani Sewak Shukla
Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai
Shri Girija Shanker
Shri Yogendra Prakash Kulshersht
Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal
Shri Pradumn Prashad Mishra
Shri Banke Bihari Pandey
Shri Yashwant Singh
Shri Chandra Shekhar
And the following persons filed Writ Petitions before retirement but no stay order granted.
Shri Gopal Singh Dangwal (W/P No. 35384/05 vide order dated 5.5.2005)
Shri R.R. Gautam (W/P No. 45495/05 vide order dated 15.6.05)
The benefits shall only be confined to above mentioned persons who have filed writ petitions before their retirement or they have obtained interim order before their retirement. The appeals filed against these persons by the Nigam shall fail and the same are dismissed. Rest of the appeals are allowed and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. There would be no order as to costs.
It is submitted that contempt petitions were filed before the High Court. In view of the order passed in this batch of appeals, the contempt petitions will not survive and the same are dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that all the Respondents in the above appeals have filed the writ petition much after their retirement and by virtue of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Jaswant Singh''s case (supra) they were not entitled to any relief. It is submitted that the judgment of the apex Court was delivered on 10/11/2006, i.e. subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and in view of the judgment of the apex Court, the direction of the learned Single Judge for payment of salary to those employees also who filed the writ petition after the retirement cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the Respondents could not dispute the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
Following the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Jaswant Singh''s case (supra) all these appeals deserve to be allowed and the writ petitions filed by the Respondent-Petitioner are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27/2/2006, is set-aside and the writ petitions are dismissed.