Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 631 (ALL)

JAGMOHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-27

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri A.B. Singh and Sri Veerendra Singh, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. 2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present petition is being decided at this stage itself. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 14.2.2017 the instructions filed by Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are taken on record. 4. Present bunch of petitions contains two categories of petitions. One, where the employees of Fish Farmer Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the FFDA) are involved wherein though the Government Order dated 26.5.2015 was passed but actual relief of extension of age from 58 to 60 years as per the decision of the Cabinet of the State Government dated 1.8.2013 has already been granted by passing individual notifications on various dates in the year 2015. It was pointed out that in Writ Petition No. 27284 of 2015 (Gopesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. and others) arrears of salary of the petitioner has not been paid till date. Second category of petition is of the employees of District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the DRDA). This category is also covered from the policy decision dated 1.8.2013, however, the age was finally extended vide Government Order dated 10.10.2014 w.e.f. 30.9.2014, which is under challenge. In this category of petitions, in some of the petitions interim orders were granted by this Court staying the notice of retirement issued to the petitioners on different dates as per their date of birth and respondent authorities were directed to pay salary but in some of the petitions no interim orders were granted. There are certain cases where the petitioners have earlier approached this Court and their petitions were disposed of with an observations that their case shall also be covered by the decision to be taken, that in case, age is extended from 58 to 60 years the petitioners would also be entitled to the same benefit. One of such order dated 8.1.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 762 of 2014 (Manohar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is quoted as under : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. One of such order dated 8.1.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 762 of 2014 (Manohar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is quoted as under : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioner is working with the District Rural Development Agency, Jhansi. According to the earlier regulation, the employees of the District Rural Agency were to retire upon attaining the age of 58 years and subsequently, it appears that the Cabinet took a policy decision on 12.8.2013 to retire such employees upon completion of 60 years of age. In Special Appeal No. 1956 of 2013, the Division Bench considering the judgment rendered in the case of Satish Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, has directed the authorities to decide the question with regard to the continuation of the petitioner up-to the age of 60 years. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the judgment in Satish Kumar Sharma (supra) is applicable to the present controversy also, as such the writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment dated 18.12.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 1956 of 2013 and it is provided that the authorities will take a decision within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before them. If within this period of two months the authority so decides to implement the Cabinet decision to allow the employees of Rural Development Agency to continue up-to the age of 60 years, the petitioner shall also be given the same benefit. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.” (emphasis supplied) 5. At the very outset, it was submitted that since the State Government by passing individual Government orders in the case of employees of FFDA has already extended the benefit of extension of age from 58 to 60 years pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 and except in Writ Petition No. 27784 of 2015 (Gopesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. and others) such petitioners have already been paid their arrears of salary, the same have become infructuous. However, a direction is sought in the aforesaid petition No. 27784 of 2015 that the authorities may be directed to pay his arrears of salary within a time bound period. 6. However, a direction is sought in the aforesaid petition No. 27784 of 2015 that the authorities may be directed to pay his arrears of salary within a time bound period. 6. Accordingly, writ petitions relating to the employees of FFDA are dismissed as having become infructuous with an observation that the authority concerned shall pass necessary order regarding payment of salary to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27784 of 2015 preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 7. The controversy now remain confined to the second category of petitions regarding employees of DRDA to the extent that as to whether 30.9.2014 fixed as cut-off-date in case of DRDA employees vide Government order dated 10.10.2014 is arbitrary, illegal and irrational and suffers from malice in law or not, as the claim of the petitioners is that their case is also covered by the same Cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 pursuant whereof the employees of other Corporations including FFDA have already been granted relief. For this purpose, in this category Writ Petition No. 38101 of 2014 (Ram Babu Kushwaha v. State of U.P and others) is taken as a leading case with the consent of parties. 8. Facts in brief of the leading case are that on 1.8.2013 Cabinet of the State Government took a policy decision to enhance the age of retirement of the employees of the department of the petitioners and other self governed institutions (Swa Shasi Sanstha) from 58 to 60 years, separate orders where required to be issued. 8. Facts in brief of the leading case are that on 1.8.2013 Cabinet of the State Government took a policy decision to enhance the age of retirement of the employees of the department of the petitioners and other self governed institutions (Swa Shasi Sanstha) from 58 to 60 years, separate orders where required to be issued. Aforesaid cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 is quoted as under : ^^i= lwpuk 'kk[kk eq[;ea=h lwpuk ifjlj lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ foHkkx m0 iz0 eqf=ifj"kn ds egRoiw.kZ fu.kZ; y[kuÅ 01 vxLr 2013 mRrj izns'k ds eq[;ea=h Jh vf[kys'k ;kno dh v/;{krk esa vkt ;gka lEiUu eaf=ifj"kn dh cSBd esa fuEufyf[kr egRoiw.kZ fu.kZ; fy, x;s& Lo'kklh laLFkkvksa ds dfeZ;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk; 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd, tkus dh lkekU; uhfr fu/kkZfjr bl QSsslys ls yxHkx 50 gtkj dehZ ykHkkfUor gksaxsA eaf=ifj"kn us izns'k ds fofHkUu foHkkxks ds vUrxZr lapkfyr Lo'kklh laLFkkvksa ds deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd, tkus dh lkekU; uhfr fu/kkZfjr dj nh gSA bl fu.kZ; ls Lo'kklh laLFkkvksa ds yxHkx 50 gtkj dehZ ykHkkfUor gSA jktdh; vuqnku ls lapkfyr laLFkkvksa esa vf/ko"kZrk vk;q esa o`f) ds fu.kZ; esa fufgr vfrfjDr foRrh; O;; Hkkj ls jkT; ljdkj }kjk vfrfjDr O;; Hkkj ds mrus izfr'kr èkujkf'k dks ogu fd;k tk,xk] ftrus izfr'kr /kujkf'k osru HkRrksa ds Hkqxrku esa orZeku esa ogu dh tk jgh gS eaf=ifj"kn }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h lkekU; uhfr ds vuqlkj fofHkUu foHkkxksa ds vUrxZr fo|eku Lo'kklh laLFkk ds deZpkfj;ksa@vfèkdkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+k dj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus gsrq lEcfU/kr foHkkx }kjk vyx vyx vkns'k izkIr fd;s tk;sxsaA Lo'kklh laLFkk ds deZpkfj;ksa vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds lkFk gh vuqi;ksxh@dzemi;ksxh inks dks lekIr fd;k tk;sxkA^^ (emphasis supplied) 9. Subsequently, Government order dated 12.8.2013 was issued by the Secretary in pursuance of the decision taken by the Government dated 1.8.2013 to enhance the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years with certain condition of completing a formality prescribed under the Government order dated 12.8.2013 to the concerned department to take action pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 12.8.2013, which is also quoted as under : ^^la[;k cs0vk0&2&493@nl&2013 izs"kd vt; vxzoky lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kklu lsok esa leLr izeq[k lfpo@lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kkluA foRr ¼osru vk;ksx½ fnukad 12 vuqHkkx 2 y[kuÅ vxLr 2013 fo"k;%& Lo'kklh laLFkkvksa ds dfeZ;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; dh vksj vki dk /;ku vkd`”V djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd fd 'kklu us lE;d fopkjksaijkUr izns'k ds fofHkUu foHkkxksa ds vUrxZr lapkfyr Lo'kklh laLFkkvksa ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh orZeku esa ykxw lsok fufoZRr dh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+k dj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus gsrq fuEukfuqlkj izfd;k fuèkkZfjr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA 1- lEcfU/kr Lolklh laLFkk ds deZpkfj;ks@vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsok fuo`fRr dh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ij fopkj fd;s tkus ds iwoZ dk;kZRed vko';drk ds ifjizs{; esa laLFkk }kjk ;g ijh{k.k fd;k tk;sxk fd orZeku esa fdu inks dh mi;ksfxrk de vFkok lekIr gks x;h gSA ,slh de mi;ksxh vuqi;ksxh inks dks lekIr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh laLFkk }kjk loZizFke dh tk;sxhA 2- rnksijkUr laLFkk ds Lrj ij ;g ijh{k.k fd;k tk;sxk fd vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 djus esa fdruk vfrfjDr O;Hkkj vk;sxkA 3- foRrh; Hkkj ds vkdyu ds i'pkr mls ogu djus ds lEcU/k esa Li"V O;oLFkk ds lkFk laLFkk }kjk izLrko xofuZx ckM+h ds le{k izLrqr dj xofuZx ckM+h dk vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxkA xofuZx ckMh ds vuqeksnuksaijkUr laLFkk }kjk mDr izLrko vius iz'kkldh; foHkkx dks miyC/k djk;k tk;sxkA 4- iz'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk izLrko dk ijh{k.k djrs gq, ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sxk fd 1- ,slh laLFkk,a tks 'kr izfr'kr jktdh; vuqnku ls lapkfyr gS muds fy, mijksDrkuqlkj izkIr izLrko esa fufgr O;;Hkkj rFkk vuqi;ksxh inksa dks lekIr djus esa QyLo:i gksus okyh cpr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, laLrqfr dh x;h gS vFkok ughaA 2- ,slh laLFkk,a tks vkaf'kd :i ls jktdh; vuqnku ls lapkfyr gS muds fy, ftruh izfr'kr dh /kujkf'k jkT; ljdkj jkT; ljdkj }kjk vuqnku ds :i esa nh tk jgh izLroko esa fufgr vfrfjDr O;; Hkkj ds mrus izfr'kr dh /kujkf'k ctVh; O;oLFkk ls vuqnku ds :i esa vuqeU; djk;h tk;sxh rFkk 'ks"k O;oHkkj dks ogu djus gsrq laLFkk ds ikl i;kZIr lalk/ku miyC/k gS vFkok ughA mDr ijh{k.k esa vuqi;ksxh inks dks lekIr djus ds QyLo:i gksus okyh cpr dks laKku esa fy;k tk;sxkA 3- ,slh laLFkk;sa tks Lo;a ds Jksrks ls lapkkfyr gS muds fy, mi;qDr izLrko esa fufgr O;;Hkkj dks ogu djus gsrq laLFkk ds ikl i;kZIr lalk/ku miyC/k gS vFkok ughaA 5- mijksDrkuqlkj O;oLFkk lqfuf'pr djus ds i'pkr izLrko dks viuh laLrqfr ds lkFk lEcfU/kr foRr ¼O;; fu;a=.k½ vuqHkkx dh lgefr gsrq lanfHkZr dj foRr foHkkx dh lgefr izkIr dh tk;sxhA 6- mijksDrkuqlkj izLrko ij foRr ¼foRr fu;U=.k½ foHkkx dh lgefr izkIr gksus ij lEcfU/kr iz'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk laLFkk ds deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ij ekuuh; ea=h ifj"kn dk vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxk ,oa rnuqlkj vkns'k foRr foHkkx dh lgefr ls fuxZr fd;s tk;saxsA 2- vki ls vuqjks/k gS fd mi;qDr fy, x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj vius fu;a=.kk/khu fo|eku Lo'kklh laLFkkvksa ds dkfeZdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus gsrq dk;Zokgh 'kh?kzrk ls djkus dk d"V djsaA^^ 10. Vide order dated 19.9.2013 pursuant to the aforesaid Government order Special Secretary to the Government issued an order to the Commissioner, Gram Vikas to obtain the report from different DRDA and other departments. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 19.9.2013 the Commissioner, Gram Vikas obtained a report from the different DRDA and other departments and vide letter dated 25.11.2013 made a recommendation to issue an order to enhance the age from 58 to 60 years. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 19.9.2013 the Commissioner, Gram Vikas obtained a report from the different DRDA and other departments and vide letter dated 25.11.2013 made a recommendation to issue an order to enhance the age from 58 to 60 years. The aforesaid letter dated 25.11.2013 is also quoted as under : ^^izsz"kd vk;qDr xzkE; fodkl mRrj izns'k lsok esa izeq[k lfpo xzkE; fodkl foHkkx mRrj izns'k 'kkluA i=kad& th0&226@ fnukad 25 LFkk&5@vfHk0@2013 uoEcj 2013 y[kuÅ fo"k; ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k dkfeZdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; 'kklu ds i=kad lkekU; 707@38&2&2013&2¼91½ Mh@2003 fnukad 19-9-2013 ,oa i=kad lkekU; 900@38&2&2013&3¼13½ Mh@2006 fnukad 14-11-2013 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA ftlds }kjk ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k dkfeZdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ,oa bu dfeZ;ksa dk ljdkjh foHkkxksa esa lek;kstu fd;s tkus gsrq izLrko@laLrqfr miyC/k djk;s tkus dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA iz'uxr izdj.k esa Li"V djuk gS fd ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k dfeZ;ksa dks lek;ksftr fd;s tkus lEcU/kh foUnq uhfrx.k ftlij 'kklu Lrj ij ;Fkksfpr fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS Mh vkj Mh , dfeZ;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus lEcU/kh fcUnq ij Li"V djuk gS fd 'kklu }kjk pkgs x;s 'kklh fudk; dh cSBd dk izLrko iwoZ gh bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad th vks 85@LFkk0 5 fnukad 4-9-2006 }kjk 22 tuinksa dk ,oa i=kad 182@LFkk0 5 fnukad 29-1-2007 }kjk 26 tuinksa dk rFkk i=kad 1276@LFkk 5 fnukad 2-11-2007 }kjk vo'ks"k 22 tuinksa dk ewy :i ls izsf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA lqyHk lanHkZ gsrq vkoj.k i=ksa dh Nk;k izfr;ka layXu gSA orZeku esa 'kklu }kjk dh x;h ftKklk ds dze esa voxr djkuk gS fd rRle;'kklh fudk; ds izsf"kr fd;s x;s 70 vfHkdj.kksa ds izLrko esa fdlh Hkh tuin dk izLrko vo'ks"k ugh FkkA orZeku esa uol`ftr tuin Hkh rRle; ds tuin esa lekfgr FksA Mh vkj Mh , deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 60 fd;s tkus ij dksbZ vfrfjDr O;;Hkkj ugh vk;sxkA deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+k dj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ij vuqHkoh dfeZ;ksa dk ;kstuk esa dh tk jgh lgHkkfxrk dk lQy lapkyu djk;s tkus dk 2 o"kZ dk volj Hkh izkIr gks tk;sxkA ,oa ,sls izdj.kksa esa ;ksfgr gks jgh ;kfpdk Lor% lekIr gks tk;saxhA tgkW rd vuqi;ksxh inks dks lekIr fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS dksbZ Hkh in vuqi;ksxh ugh gS ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.kksa esa Lohd`r lh/kh HkrhZ ds inks ij HkrhZ ij izfrcU/k gksus ds dkj.k yxkrkj in de gks jgs gSA rnuqlkj laLrqfr lfgr izLrko vxzrj dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gSA^^ (emphasis supplied) 11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take notice of the interim order dated 4.8.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 38101 of 2014, which is quoted as under : “Connect with writ petition No. 50351 of 2013 (Jagmohan and another v. State of U.P and others). The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents states that no decision has been taken by the State Government pursuant to the order dated 9.9.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 1265 of 2013. The Government by the order dated 12.8.2013 had in principle agreed to enhance the age of superannuation to 60 years on certain conditions being fulfilled by autonomous bodies. The Commissioner, Gram Vikas Abhikaran, U.P in its letter of 25.11.2013 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Village Development U.P has conveyed the approval of the DRDA to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees to 60 years. However, more than eight months have passed and no decision has been taken by the State Government as a result of which employees superannuating on attaining the age of 58 years are approaching the Court for interim relief. The respondent No. 1, Secretary Gram Vikas, Lucknow is directed to take a decision on the letter of the Commissioner, Gram Vikas Abhikaran, U.P Lucknow dated 25.11.2013 within eight weeks from today failing which respondent No. 1, Secretary, Gram Vikas, Lucknow shall appear in person alongwith record to assist the Court. Till the next date of listing, the impugned notice dated 10.4.2014 retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall continue in service and shall be paid his salary month to month. List on 15.9.2014.” (emphasis supplied) 12. The aforesaid order clearly observed that more than eight months have passed but no decision has been taken. Pursuant to the letter of the Commissioner, Gram Vikas dated 25.11.2013 a direction was issued to take decision within eight weeks failing which Secretary, Gram Vikas, Lucknow shall appear in person alongwith record to assist the Court. It is only thereafter in the meeting of the Cabinet dated 30.9.2014 decision was taken to extend the age from 58 to 60 years. Thereafter the Government order dated 10.10.2014 was passed, which was made effective from 30.9.2014, which is under challenge. 13. It is only thereafter in the meeting of the Cabinet dated 30.9.2014 decision was taken to extend the age from 58 to 60 years. Thereafter the Government order dated 10.10.2014 was passed, which was made effective from 30.9.2014, which is under challenge. 13. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 covers all the employees of the legal self governing bodies, which undisputedly includes the employees of DRDA and since the employees of FFDA have already been granted relief by passing the individual Government orders no distinction can be drawn between the employees of FFDA and employees of the DRDA. It was also pointed out that the employees of Lal Bahadur Shastri Ganna Kisan Sansthan U.P., employees of U.P. Hindi Sansthan and employees of Urja Shrot Vibhag have already been granted relief from various dates prior to the cut-off-date as fixed in the present case. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the Commissioner, Gram Vikas has already made his recommendation on 25.11.2013, therefore, delay, if any, was purely on the part of the Government in taking decision for which petitioners cannot be made to suffer. It was next submitted that even as per the instructions that have been placed on record pursuant to the order dated 14.2.2017 passed by this Court, no ground whatsoever has been pointed out for fixing 30.9.2014 as cut-off-date in the case of DRDA. 15. It is further submitted by learned counsel that State had acted illegally in distinguishing and discriminating the petitioners from the employees of FFDA to whom benefit has been extended pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 18.2013 and arrears of salary has also been paid to them. 15. It is further submitted by learned counsel that State had acted illegally in distinguishing and discriminating the petitioners from the employees of FFDA to whom benefit has been extended pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 18.2013 and arrears of salary has also been paid to them. In his support learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court passed by learned Single Judge in the case of Sitaram Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(3) ESC 1609 (All)(LB), to contend that in an identical case of employees of U.P.S.R.T.C., where notice of retirement was challenged on the basis of policy decision dated 5.1.2012 no order was being issued by the Government in spite of completing all the formalities then the notice of retirement was challenged in which an order was passed to consider the claim of the petitioners and the retirement was subject to the decision of the Government the impugned order for enhancement of age was passed with retrospective effect which was set aside by the Court. Relevant paragraphs 27, 28 and 30 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under : “27. In the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India and others, (1994) 3 SCC 1 , the Hon. Supreme Court has held that “when the Act is alleged to be mala fide and there is no reason except which occasion to exercise the said powers, the said Act should be considered to be ex facie arbitrary and mala fide. 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 beenmade 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 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. Although the permission has been given with prospective effect but the petitioners case was already covered by 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 by 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. 30. The petitioners will be treated to have retired after attaining the age of 60. They will be entitled to the salary and other benefits including allowances till their date of attaining 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.” (emphasis supplied) 16. He has further placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty and others, (2013) 7 SCC 595 , to contend that in the light of paragraphs 49, 49.1, 49.2, 49.3 all the petitioners are entitled for relief, whether interim orders were granted in the petition or not. 17. Per contra, Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that since the benefit has been extended by Government order dated 10.10.2014, as pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 exercise was done in DRDA and employees thereof were found entitled to get the benefit of enhancement of age of retirement w.e.f 30.9.2014 and therefore, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 with retrospective effect and Government order dated 12.8.2013, which was issued to complete the exercise for this purpose and in other departments, such as FFDA, the said benefit has been extended in the light of cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 wherein relevant Government orders were issued on various dates in the year 2015 on individual basis and the benefit has been extended w.e.f cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 in pursuance whereof, the Government order dated 12.8.2013 was issued. 18. 18. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to take notice of the Government order dated 10.10.2014, which is quoted as under : ^^la[;k 687@38&2&2014&2¼91½Mh@2003 izs"kd] v:.k fla?ky izeq[k lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kklu lsok esa] vk;qDr xzkE; fodkl mRrj izns'k y[kuÅA xzkE; fodkl vuqHkkx&2 fnukad 10 vDVwcj 2014 y[kuÅ fo"k;& izns'k ds ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.kksa esa fu;qDr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k th vks 226@LFkk0&5@vfHk0@2013 fnukad 25 vDVwcj 2013 dk d`i;k lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlds ek/;e ls izns'k ds ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.kksa ess fu;qDr vfèkdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa izLrko miyC/k djk;k x;k FkkA 2- bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd izns'k dh ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.kksa esa fu;qDr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q lE;d fopkjksaijkUr 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA 3- 'kklu esa l{ke Lrj ls ;g fu.kZ; fnukad 30 flrEcj 2014 dks fy;k x;k gS vr% mDr vkns'k fnukad 30 flrEcj 2014 ls izHkkoh gksxkA 4- mijksDr lEcU/k esa xzkE; fodkl vuqHkkx 2 ds fuxZr 'kklukns'k la[;k Mh 630@38&2&2014 2¼91½ Mh@2003 fnukad 30 flrEcj 2014 dks ,rn~}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 5- ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; i= la[;k bZ&2&894@nl&2014 fnukad 09 vDVwcj 2014 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls fuxZr fd;k tk jgk gSA^^ (emphasis supplied) 19. A reference to the instructions dated 23.2.2017 received by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel placed before this Court are also quoted as under : ^^la[;k&25@38&2&2017&2¼91½@2003 izs"kd] lq'khy dqekj ik.Ms;] la;qDr lfpo] m0iz0 'kkluA lsok esa] vk;qDr] xzkE; fodkl] m0iz0] y[kuÅA xzkE; fodkl vuqHkkx&2 fnukad% 23 Qjojh] 2017 y[kuÅ] fo"k;%& fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&50351@2013 txeksgu o vU; cuke m0iz0 ljdkj o vU; ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds vUrfje vkns'k fnukad 14&02&2017 ¼Nk;kizfr layXud&1½ esa okafNr bULVªD'ku ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS gS fd ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k ,d iathd`r laLFkku gSA 'kklukns'k fnukad 18&07&2016 ds }kjk lfofy;u ds iwoZ ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k ds deZpkfj;ksa dks jkT; deZpkjh dk ntkZ izkIr ugha FkkA fn0 30&09&2014 ds iwoZ ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.kksa ds dkfeZdksa dh lsokfuo`fRr dh vk;q 58 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr FkhA izns'k ds Lo'kklh laLFkkvksa ds dkfeZdksa dh vf/kof"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa foRr ¼osru&vkksx½ vk;ksx vuqHkkx&2 ds 'kklukns'k fnukad 12 vxLr] 2013 ¼Nk;kizfr layXud&12½ }kjk izkfo/kku fd;k x;k FkkA 2& ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k ds dkfeZdksa ds lEcU/k esa foRr foHkkx ds 'kklukns'k fnukad 12 vxLr] 2013 ds dze esa esa fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k iwjh djrs gq, foRr foHkkx dks mudh lgefr gsrq i=koyh izLrqr dh x;h FkhA foRr foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k iw.kZ fd;s tkus ls lUrq"V gksrs gq, mDr ij vukifRr bl 'krZ ds v/khu iznku dh x;h Fkh fd iz'kkldh; foHkkx bl lEcU/k esa fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh djrs gq, ek0 eaf=ifj"kn~ o ek0 eq[;ea=h th dk vuqeksnu izkIr djsaxsA foRr foHkkx ds mDr ijke'kZ ds dze esa foHkkx }kjk U;k; foHkkx ,oa dkfeZd foHkkx dk ijke'kZ izkIr dj ek0 eaf=ifj"kn ds vuqeksnu ds mijkUr 'kklukns'k fnukad 10&10&2014 }kjk izns'k ds ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.kksa esa fu;qDr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh 30&09&2014 ls lsokfuo`fRr dh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ dh x;h gSA bl lEcUèk esa Li"V djuk gS fd 'kklu esa l{ke Lrj ¼ek0 eaf=ifj"kn~ }kjk½ ls ;g fu.kZ; 30 flrEcj 2014 dks fy;k x;k Fkk] vr,o 'kklu ds i= fnukad 30&09&2014 ¼Nk;kizfr layXud&3½ }kjk vk;qDr] xzkE; fodkl m0iz0 y[kuÅ djs funsZf'kr dj fn;k x;k Fkk fd ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.k ds ,sls dkfeZd dks tks fnukad 30&09&2014 dks vijkUg~ esa lsokfuo`Rr gks jgs gSa] dks vfxze vkns'kksa rd lsokfuo`Rr u fd;k tk; ,oa rRi'pkr~ 'kklukns'k fnukad 10&10&2014 ¼Nk;kizfr layXud&4½ }kjk izns'k ds ftyk xzkE; fodkl vfHkdj.kksa esa fu;qDr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/kof"kZrk vk;q fnukad 30&09&2014 ls 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds vkns'k izlkfjr fd;s x;s gSaA d`i;k eq[; LFkk;h vf/koDrk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ls lEidZ dj rn~uqlkj rF;xr fLFkfr ls voxr djkrs gq, iz'uxr fjV ;kfpdk esa lquok;h dh frfFk 27&02&2017 dks 'kklu@foHkkx dh vksj ls izHkkoh iSjoh djkus dk d"V djsaA^^ 20. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. 21. First of all it is necessary to take note of the fact that all the local self Government bodies that have been referred to above, including the employees of DRDA, are undisputedly covered by the decision of the cabinet dated 1.8.2013. It is also not in dispute that vide letter dated 25.11.2013 the Commissioner, Gram Vikas has submitted his recommendation for extension of age of DRDA employees from 58 to 60 years but no decision was admittedly taken. 22. I have also carefully perused the various documents placed on record. A compliance affidavit dated 29.4.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 50351 of 2013 (Jagmohan and another v. State of U.P. and others) (relating to employees of Fish Farmer Development Agency) was filed, annexure 2 whereof is an order dated 16.4.2015 passed in Contempt Petition No. 149 of 2015 (Bhola Nath Pal v. Rajnish Gupta, Principal Secy. Deptt. Of Fishieries Lucknow and another) clearly reflects that for non-compliance of the order of the Writ Court a contempt notice was issued to the Secretary and it is only thereafter various individual Government orders of different dates were passed extending the benefit to such employees of Fish Farmer Development Agency pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013. Such orders are on record in the shape of supplementary counter-affidavit dated 31.11.2015 in the case of Jagmohan (supra) as referred above. 23. In the present case also after passing of the direction to take decision within eight weeks on the letter of the Commissioner, Gram Vikas dated 25.11.2013 as directed by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2014 the decision was taken on 30.9.2014 by the cabinet and thereafter Government order dated 10.10.2014 was issued fixing 30.9.2014 as the cut-off-date. It is very much pertinent to note that it is only in this Government order a cut-off-date has been fixed by the State of Government, whereas employees of other self governed local bodies plainly benefit has been extended pursuant to the cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 and they have also been paid arrears of salary. 24. A perusal of the Government order dated 10.10.2014 nowhere indicates the reason for fixing such cut-off-date. 24. A perusal of the Government order dated 10.10.2014 nowhere indicates the reason for fixing such cut-off-date. A perusal of the instruction dated 23.2.2017 that has already been quoted above also clearly nowhere indicates the reason why this cut-off-date 30.9.2014 is being fixed except to note on that since the State has taken decision on that dates, therefore, from this date the Government order shall become effective, whereas admittedly the Commissioner, Gram Vikas made his recommendations vide letter dated 25.11.2013. It is, therefore, quite obvious that it is only because of the order dated 4.8.2014, wherein strict view was taken by this Court to take decision in the matter in the light of the letter of the Commissioner, Gram Vikas dated 25.11.2013, failing which Secretary, Gram Vikas, Lucknow shall appear in person alongwith record to assist the Court, the aforesaid decision was taken. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I am forced to make observation that it is only pursuant to the contempt proceedings pending before the Lucknow Bench of this Court as noticed above and the direction to appear in person has only persuaded the State authorities to come into action and pass Government orders. 25. I find that no reason has been assigned as to why even though the individual Government orders in case of FFDA has been issued on various dates in the year 2015 i.e. subsequent to the Government order passed in present case of employees of DRDA, what was the distinguished feature so as to why this benefit could not have been extended to the petitioners. I am conscious of the law that the cut-off-date as provided in Government order dated 10.10.2014, cannot be interfered lightly by the Court and the Court can interfere in this only if it is arbitrary in nature. It is the State Government, who is entitled to fix the cut-off date. In this regard a reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and others v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, (2009) 3 SCC 35. 26. In the aforesaid case a challenge was raised to the extension of cut-off-date by the High Court which was fixed in the absorption scheme. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment of the High Court. 26. In the aforesaid case a challenge was raised to the extension of cut-off-date by the High Court which was fixed in the absorption scheme. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment of the High Court. In paragraph 29 it has been observed that the State is entitled to fix the cut-off-date and such a decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. In paragraph 33 of the said judgment it has been further observed that indisputably, a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. But the Court must invalidate a policy on some legal principles and it can do so, inter alia, on the premise that it is wholly irrational and not otherwise. Relevant extract of paragraphs 29 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “29. “State” is entitled to fix a cut-off date. Such a decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. Its invalidation may also depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. ................” 33. Indisputably, a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. But, the Court must invalidate a policy on some legal principles. It can do so, inter alia, on the premise that it is wholly irrational and not otherwise. .............” 27. In the above noted case, it has been laid down that as a rule, interference is not called for in cut-off-date except that the decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. In the present case, I find that even the instructions that have been received by the Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, do not reflect any such rational beyond fixing such cut-off-date as 30.9.2014 whereas, even by the subsequent individual Government orders of the year 2015 the benefit of extended age was granted to the employees of FFDA with retrospective effect, authority in that case also vide Government Order dated 26.5.2015 decision to extend age was taken. These Government Orders were issued subsequent to the Government Order dated 10.10.2014 issued in the case of DRDA. These Government Orders were issued subsequent to the Government Order dated 10.10.2014 issued in the case of DRDA. For ready reference one such individual Government Order dated 30.6.2015 passed in the case of one Umesh Chandra Pandey extending benefit even from the prior date (i.e. date of subsequent being 30.9.2014) is being quoted as under : ^^mRrj izns'k 'kklu eRL; mRiknu vuqHkkx la[;k 536@l=g&e&2015]6&5¼75½@2014 y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 twu] 2015 dk;kZy; vkns'k Jh mes'k pUnz ik.Ms; rkykc mRiknu fo'ks"kK ds in ij eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k tuin nsofj;k esa dk;Zjr FksA tUefrfFk flrEcj 1956 ds vuqlkj 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ gksus ds dkj.k eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k nsofj;k dh uksfVl la[;k& 257@O;fDr@i=k0@fnukad 05-04-2014 }kjk vf/ko"kZrk vk;q fnukad 30-09-2014 dh lwpuk Jh mes'k pUnz ik.Ms; dks nh x;hA mDr uksfVl ds fo:) Jh mes'k pUnz ik.Ms; rkykc mRiknu fo'ks"kK eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k tuin nsofj;k }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&, 34385@2014 mes'k pUnz ik.Ms; cuke m0iz0 ljdkj o vU; ;ksftr dh x;hA mDRk fjV ;kfpdk esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-07-2014 esa eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k nsofj;k dh uksfVl fnukad 05-04-2014 dks LFkfxr dj fn;k x;kA 2- foRr ¼osru vk;ksx½ vuqHkkx&2 ds 'kklukns'k fnukad 12-08-2013 eas fofgr izfdz;k dk vuqikyu djrs gq;s eRL; foHkkx ds vUrxZr 19 eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.kksa esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q&58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; 'kklukns'k fnukad 26 ebZ] 2015 }kjk fy;k x;kA ;g 'kklukns'k rkRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw fd;k x;k gSA 3- 'kklukns'k fnukad 26 ebZ] 2015 fuxZr gksus ls iwoZ vfHkdj.k esa vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr gksus ds vk/kkj ij ;kph Jh mes'k pUnz ik.Ms; viuh 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ dj fnukad 30-09-2014 dks lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds mijkUr Hkh ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls dk;Zjr gS rFkk lanHkZxr 'kklukns'k fnukad 26 ebZ] 2015 }kjk vfHkdj.k ds dkfeZdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q&58 o"kZ ls c<kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fuxZr fd;s x;s gSA izns'k ds 19 eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.kksa ds ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa ls vkPNkfnr dkfeZdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q 58 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus lEcU/kh fy;s x;s fu.kZ;kUrxZr iz'uxr izdj.k 'kkfey gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds mijksDr LFkxukns'k fnukad 08-07-2014 ds vuqikyu esa ;kph Jh mes'k pUnz ik.Ms; dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 60 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ djus dh rkjh[k vFkkZr 30-09-2016 rd mudh lsok fuo`Rr dh rkjh[k ¼fnukad 30-09-2014½ dks /kkfjr in ij lsok eas ;Fkkor cuk;s j[kus dh Jh jkT;iky egksn; lg”kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSA^^ (emphasis supplied) 28. In such view of the matter, I find that the cut-off-date so fixed in the present case as 30.9.2014 has no relevance with the objective to be achieved pursuant to cabinet decision and after no reason on rational as to why inspite of the recommendation of the Commissioner, Gram Vikas dated 25.11.2013 no swift decision was taken and I find that the same is unreasonable and arbitrary insofar as the petitioners are concerned. In the present case, the sole object to give a subsequent cut-off-date appears to be to avoid financial liability in colourable exercise of powers. 29. There is yet another reason for allowing the petition as already noted in the case of FFDA the relevant Government Order was issued on 26.5.2015, however by the individual Government Order dated 30.6.2015, which is quoted above the benefit of extended service was granted by permitting the petitioner to continue till 30.9.2016 as per his date of birth, whereas he was given notice of retirement that he shall stand retired on 30.9.2014. The case of the petitioners is identical in nature, therefore, they cannot be discriminated on this account also. 30. In such view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the cabinet decision dated 1.8.2013 in pursuance where of a Government order dated 12.8.2013 was issued and it is provided that they shall be entitled benefits in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra) as while disposing of earlier petitions, this Court has already observed that in case decision is taken to extent the age, benefit of such extension shall be granted to the petitioners also. Therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to benefits as per judgement in Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra). Relevant paragraph Nos. 49, 49.1, 49.2 and 49.3 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under : 49. In these cases as we have already held that Regulation 31 shall be applicable and the age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam shall be 60 years; we are of the view that following consequential and pecuniary benefits should be allowed to different sets of employees who were ordered to retire at the age of 58 years: 49.1. In these cases as we have already held that Regulation 31 shall be applicable and the age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam shall be 60 years; we are of the view that following consequential and pecuniary benefits should be allowed to different sets of employees who were ordered to retire at the age of 58 years: 49.1. The employees including respondents who moved before a Court of law irrespective of fact whether interim order was passed in their favour or not, shall be entitled for full salary up to the age of 60 years. The arrears of salary shall be paid to them after adjusting the amount if any paid. 49.2. The employees, who never moved before any Court of law and had to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, they shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, in view of Regulation 31 they will deem to have continued in service up to the age of 60 years. In their case, the appellants shall treat the age of superannuation at 60 years, fix the pay accordingly and re-fix the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc. On such calculation, they shall be entitled for arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid. 49.3. The arrears of salary and arrears of retirement benefits should be paid to such employees within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.” 31. Consequently, writ petitions relating to the employees of FFDA are dismissed as having become infructuous with an observation that the authority concerned shall pass necessary order regarding payment of salary to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27784 of 2015 preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 32. Second category of petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled for payment as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra). 33. This bunch of petitions stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.