Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1566 (ALL)

LAL BAHADUR v. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI

2002-10-26

S.N.SRIVASTAVA

body2002
S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER who stood superannuated from the post of Chowkidar in Krishi Utpadan Mandi samiti, Roora, Kanpur Dehat on 30. 9. 2001 after attaining the age of 60 years, by means of the present petition, has sought the relief of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him the amount of C. P. F. due against the services rendered by him. ( 2 ) THE background leading to the filing of the present petition is that the petitioner was sought to be retired at the age of 58 years and intimation to that effect was embodied in the notice dated 18. 6. 1999. The petitioner, to begin with, represented to the authorities soliciting his continuance in service upto the age of 60 years and since repeated approaches and representations did not yield any action, the petitioner instituted writ petition being Writ Petition No. 41524 of 1999 in which the Honble Court made interim order by which effect and operation of the impugned order dated 18. 6. 1999 was stayed. The causative factor for filing the present petition is that he has not been paid C. P. F. amount which has been approximated to the tune of Rs. 75,000 on the premises that the petition filed by the petitioner was still pending in the Court. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. P. S. Niranjan learned counsel appearing for Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placed credence on Explanation to Rule 46 (4) and submitted that Fundamental Rules have been suitably amended on 28th July, 1987 by means of the U. P. Fundamental (First Amendment) Rules, 1987, to the effect that all the persons who were appointed as class IV employees prior to 5th November, 1985, would be allowed to work upto the age of 60 years. In the light of the above amendment, it is further canvassed that the petitioner was rightly allowed to continue in the service upto the age of 60 years and he is entitled to be paid the post retiral benefits calculable qua the retirement age of 60 years. In opposition, Sri M. P. S. Niranjan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, repudiated the arguments submitting that under the Rules, the age of superannuation is pegged at 58 years. In opposition, Sri M. P. S. Niranjan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, repudiated the arguments submitting that under the Rules, the age of superannuation is pegged at 58 years. Reference in connection with the proposition propounded by the learned counsel, has been made to various decisions including ratio decidendi flowing from Writ Petition Wo. 6554 of 1986. Lalji Singh v. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors. , decided on 22. 2. 1996, civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 196 of 2002, Dev Karan Singh v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, meharoant, Lalitpur and Ors. , decided on 4. 1. 2002 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39550 of 2002, Satya Prakash Mishra v. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and ors. , decided on 17. 9. 2002, in order to hammer home his contentions. ( 5 ) PROVISIONS of Rule 46 (1) and (4) being germane to the controversy involved in this petition are quoted below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules may also be quoted below : "notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) or Clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of (forty five years) or after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years. " ( 6 ) SUB-RULE (1) of Rule 46, envisages the age of superannuation to be 58 years. From a bare perusal of Rule 46 (4), it admits of no doubt that this rule is attracted to a case pertaining to compulsory retirement. The quintessence of this rule is that after the age of 50 years, any person could be retired or he could seek permission to retire only after giving three months notice. The explanation also refers to Rule 56 (c) which also is applicable to a case pertaining to compulsory retirement and does not appear to have any relativity to the age of superannuation. The explanation also refers to Rule 56 (c) which also is applicable to a case pertaining to compulsory retirement and does not appear to have any relativity to the age of superannuation. By this reckoning the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years in view of the Explanation to Rule 46 (4) qua the first amendment under Fundamental Rules, 1987, do not commend to me for acceptance. My above view that the age of superannuation of an employee of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi parishad/samiti is 58 years, receives reinforcement from the decisions cited above. ( 7 ) BEFORE closing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to seek accommodative view of the Court in order to mitigate the hardship that may flow from the decision of the Court urging that the petitioner has worked upto the age of 60 years under the orders of this Court and has been paid the salary for the duties performed by him. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to take a benign view of the matter and direct that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner for the amount already paid to him. ( 8 ) AS a result of foregoing discussion, the petition is disposed of attended with direction that all the post retiral benefits shall be paid to the petitioner treating him to have retried at the age of 58 years. .