Shyam Bahadur Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Saran, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

The petitioner comes up for the enhancement of the age of superannuation to 60 years.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a couple of decisions, which have been filed alongwith the writ petition.

Shri Vivek Saran, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 contends that the State Government has rejected such proposals and with regard to the same department two Division Bench decisions have been rendered by this Court.

Two judgments, which have been placed before the Court passed in Writ Petition No. 852 of 2007, Pratap Singh v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and Ors. alongwith the other connected matters decided on 18.12.2009 and in the case of Satyendra Kumar Garg v. State of U.P. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 615 of 2007, decided on 23.5.2007 take care of the situation by interpreting para 947 of the Working Manual of the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited.

In view of the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments and the Government order dated 29.6.2009, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decisions cannot come to his aid.

The writ petition therefore cannot be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed.