//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter = (i) Whether two different age of superannuation of 58 and 60 years can be prescribed for the employees similarly situated, including members of the same service, solely on the basis of their source of entry in the service. (ii) Whether ‘the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005’ fixing two different age of superannuation for similarly situated employees of Jal Nigam are discriminatory and ultra vires under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.= ‘no pay no work’ is not applicable to the employees who were guided by specific rules like Leave Rules etc. relating to absence from duty. Such principle can be applied to only those employees who were not guided by any specific rule relating to absence from duty. If an employee is prevented by the employer from performing his duties, the employee cannot be blamed for having not worked, and the principle of ‘no pay no work’ shall not be applicable to such employee. = 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: (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dated 29th July, 2010 and other impugned judgments stand modified to the extent above.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40490

 

Page 1

 

Uttar Pradesh Government Seal

Uttar Pradesh Government Seal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5527 OF 2012
(arising out of SLP (c) No. 31279 of 2010)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH         … APPELLANT
Versus
DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY & ORS.              … RESPONDENTS
With
C.A.No.5528   of   2012  (Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.35579   of
2010)
C.A.No.5617­5659   of   2012  (Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.5218­
5260 of 2011)
C.A.No.   5529   of   2012  (Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.14880   of
2011)
C.A.No. 5530 of 2012  (Arising Out of SLP(C) No.19119 of
2011)
C.A.No.   5531   of   2012  (Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.16519   of
2011)
C.A.No.   5532   of   2012(Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.26336   of
2011)
C.A.No.   5533   of   2012(Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.22838   of
2011)
C.A.No.   5534   of   2012(Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.22839   of
2011)
C.A.No.   5535   of   2012(Arising   Out   of   SLP(C)   No.22840   of
2011)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
These appeals Nos. 5527 of 2012, 5528 of 2012 and 5617­
5659   of   2012   (arising   out   of   SLP(C)   Nos.31279   of   2010,
35579 of 2010, 5218­60 of 2011) have been preferred by the
State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   others   against   the   common
1Page 2
judgment dated 29th July, 2010 passed by the Division Bench
of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad,   Lucknow
Bench,   Lucknow   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.1595(S/B)   of   2009
etc.etc.  whereby the High Court declared Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam   Employees   (Retirement   on   attaining   age   of
superannuation) Rules, 2005 which have created two separate
age   of   retirement   amongst   same   classes   of   employees
discriminatory   and   unconstitutional   and   held   that   the
employees   of   the   Jal   Nigam   are   entitled   to   continue   in
service upto the age of 60 years with further directions to
pay 20%  of back wages to those writ petitioners who in the
meantime were forced to retire on attaining the age of 58
years in absence of any  interim order in their cases.
The benefit of enhancement of age was confined to the
persons   who   had   filed   the   writ   petitions   before   their
retirement and was not granted to those who in the meantime
retired at the age of 58 years and had not moved before the
High Court.
The   other   appeals   have   been   preferred   against   the
judgments   subsequently   passed   on   29th  April,   2010,   17th
August,  2010,  16th  September,  2010,  28th  October,  2010,  3rd
2Page 3
December,   2010   which   were   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the
aforesaid judgment dated 29th July, 2010.
Before   the   High   Court   Writ   Petition   No.1191(SB)   of
2009 was filed by the U.P. Engineers Association Jal Nigam,
praying   therein   to   declare   U.P.   Jal   Nigam   Karamchari
(Adhivarshita   Par   Seva   Nivarti)   Viniyamawali,   2005   [U.P.
Jal   Nigam   Employees   (Retirement     on   attaining   age   of
Superannuation) Regulations, 2005] (hereinafter referred to
as   the   “Regulations,   2005”)   unconstitutional   and   ultra
vires   to   the   provisions  of   the   Constitution  of   India   and
further   to   quash   the   orders   dated   3rd  July,   2009   and   29th
June, 2009 passed by the respondents 1 and 2 to the writ
petition, respectively.  The other prayers were to restrain
the respondents from causing retirement of the members of
the writ petitioners’ association at the age of 58 years as
well as to allow them to continue to work  till they attain
the age of 60 years.
Except the aforesaid writ petition, in all other writ
petitions,   writ   petitioners   have   challenged   their
respective order (s) whereby they had been asked to retire
3Page 4
on attaining the age of 58 years as per the provisions of
Regulations, 2005.
2. The questions involved in these appeals are:
(i) Whether two different age of superannuation of 58 and
60   years   can   be   prescribed   for   the   employees   similarly
situated, including members of the same service, solely on
the basis of their source of entry in the service.
(ii) Whether   ‘the   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam   (Retirement   on
attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005’ fixing
two different age of superannuation for similarly situated
employees of Jal Nigam are discriminatory and ultra vires
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
A   department,   known   as   Public   Health   Engineering
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘PHED‘) was created during
the British period for performing all the works related to
public   health   engineering   including   sewerage   and   water
supply. Just before the independence, the State of United
Province   created   a   Local   Self   Government   Engineering
Department (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LSGED’) which
4Page 5
was   converted   from   PHED.     All   the   engineering   works   of
Local   Self   Government   were   entrusted   to   the   said   newly
created department.
4. By   Notification   dated   18th  June,   1975   issued   under
Section  3   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Water   Supply  and  Sewerage
Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1975), the
State   Government   constituted   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam
(hereinafter referred to as the “Nigam”). Section 37(1) of
the Act, 1975 provided that the services of the employees
and   engineers   of   the   Local   Self­Government   Engineering
Department (LSGED) will be transferred and merged into the
newly created Nigam on the same terms and conditions, which
were   governing   their   services   prior   to   such   absorption,
till the said service conditions are altered/changed by the
Rules or Regulations framed in accordance with law.
5. In its second meeting dated 4th April, 1977 vide Agenda
Item   No.2.21   the   Board   of     Nigam   resolved   that   all   the
provisions   of   Financial   Handbook,   Manual   of   Government
Order, Civil Services Regulations, Government Servant Rules
and   other   Government   orders   shall   be   applicable   to   the
5Page 6
employees of the Nigam, provided the Nigam has not passed
any other order.
Initially, in exercise of powers conferred under sub­
section (1) and clause (c) of sub­section (2) of Section 97
of Act, 1975 and with the previous approval of the State
Government, the Nigam made regulations for regulating the
recruitment to the posts and the conditions of service of
persons appointed to the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Service of
Engineers (Public Health Branch) known as the Uttar Pradesh
Service   of   Engineers   (Public   Health   Branch)   Regulations,
1977.
6. Subsequently,   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under
sub­section   (1)   and   clause   (c)     of   sub­section   (2)   of
Section 97 of the Act, 1975, and with the previous approval
of the State Government, Nigam  made the “Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam   Services   of   Engineers   (Public   Health   Branch)
Regulations,   1978”   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
“Regulations, 1978”) for regulating the recruitment to the
posts and the conditions of service of persons appointed to
the   Jal   Nigam   Engineers   (Public   Health   Branch).   The   said
Regulations,   1978   were   made   equally   applicable   to   the
6Page 7
employees transferred and merged from the erstwhile LSGED
and  the  employees   directly   recruited   by  the  Nigam   and   it
came   into   force   w.e.f.   27th  April,   1978.     Regulation   31
relates   to   pay,   allowance,   pension,   leave   and   other
conditions of service which reads as follows:
“Regulation   31.­   Except   as   provided   in
these   regulations   the   pay,   allowance,
pension, leave, imposition of penalties and
other conditions of service of the members
of the service shall be regulated by rules,
regulations or orders applicable generally
to   the   Government   Service   in   connection
with the affairs of the state.”
7. There   is   no   separate   provision   for   age   of
superannuation of employees of the Nigam prescribed under
Regulations,   1978.   As   per   Regulation,   31,   the   terms   and
conditions of service of the employees of the Nigam shall
be   governed   by   the   same   rules,   regulations   and   orders
generally   applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   State
Government  and hence the retirement and superannuation age
of   employees   of   the   Nigam   shall   stand   governed   by   the
provisions of Rule 56(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental
Rules contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part
II­IV, which reads as follows:
7Page 8
“Rule 56(a).Except as otherwise provided in
other clauses of this rule every Government
servant   shall   retire   from   service   on   the
afternoon of the last day of the month in
which   he   attains   the   age   of   fifty­eight
years. He may be retained in service after
the   date   of   retirement   on   superannuation
with   the   sanction   of   the   government   on
public   grounds   which   must   be   recorded   in
writing but he must not be retained after
the   age   of   sixty   years   except   in   very
special circumstances.”
The age of retirement of the State Government employees
as per Rule 56(a) of Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules was 58
years.     In   the   year   2001,   the   State   Government   vide   its
Official   Order   No.1098/A­1/2001   dated   28th  November,   2001
informed of its intention to amend clause (a) of Rule 56.
Consequently, Rule 56(a) was amended by “The Uttar Pradesh
Fundamental   (Amendment)   Rules,   2002”   vide   Notification
dated   27th  June,   2002,   which   came   into   force   on   28th
November, 2001.  As per the amended  clause (c) of Rule 56,
the age of superannuation of the State Government employees
was   enhanced   from   58   years   to   60   years,   which   reads   as
follows:
“Rule 56(a).Except as otherwise provided in
this   rule,   every   government   servant   shall
retire from service on the afternoon of the
last day of the month in which he attains
the age of sixty years.
8Page 9
Provided   that   a   Government   servant   whose
date of birth is the first day of a month
shall retire from service on the afternoon
of the last day of the preceding month on
attaining the age of sixty years.
Provided further that a Government servant
who   has   attained   the   age   of   fifty   eight
years   on   or   before   the   first   day   of
November,   2001   and   is   on   extension   in
service shall retire from service on expiry
of his extended period of service.”
8. In the meantime, after issuance of Government’s order
expressing its intention to amend clause (a) of Rule 56 by
Notification   dated   28th  November,   2001,   the   Nigam   by   its
letter   dated   31st  December,   2001   enquired   from   the   State
Government as to whether the benefit of enhancement in the
age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years would be
applicable to the employees of the Nigam or not. In reply
thereto just before the Amendment Rules, 2002, the special
Secretary   to   the   State   Government   from   its   Department   of
Local   Self   Government   by   his   letter   dated   22nd  January,
2002, conveyed that the employees of the Nigam shall not be
entitled to the enhancement of age of superannuation from
58 years to 60 years as the same would be applicable only
to the State Government employees. On receipt of the said
letter,   on   11th  July,   2002   the     Nigam     resolved   that
9Page 10
enhancement in the age of superannuation from 58 years to
60 years would not be applicable to the employees of the
Nigam.
Against the decision of the State Government dated 22nd
January,   2002   and   the   decision   of   the   Nigam   vide   Office
Memorandum   dated   11th   July,   2002     a   number   of   writ
petitions were preferred by the employees of the Nigam who
were   being   sought   to   retire   on   completing   the   age   of   58
years. Some of the employees directly filed writ petitions
before   this   Court   challenging   the   orders   issued   by   the
Nigam     against   them   to   the   effect   that   they   would
superannuate   upon   completion   of  58   years.     This  Court   by
its judgment in Harwindra Kumar vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik
and   others,   2005   (13)   SCC   300  directed   the   Nigam     to
continue   the   petitioners   of   those   cases   in   service   till
they attain the age of 60 years and the orders directing
their retirement at the age of 58 years were set aside with
the following observation:
“9. In the present case, as the Regulations have
been   framed   by   the   Nigam   specifically
enumerating   in   Regulation   31   thereof   that   the
Rules   governing   the   service   conditions   of
government   servants   shall   equally   apply   to   the
employees of the Nigam, it was not possible for
10Page 11
the   Nigam   to   take   an   administrative   decision
acting   under   Section   15(1)   of   the   Act   pursuant
to the direction of the State Government in the
matter of policy issued under Section 89 of the
Act   and   directing   that   the   enhanced   age   of
superannuation   of   60   years   applicable   to   the
government   servants   shall   not   apply   to   the
employees   of   the   Nigam.   In   our   view,   the   only
option   for   the   Nigam   was   to   make   suitable
amendment   in   Regulation   31   with   the   previous
approval   of   the   State   Government   providing
thereunder   the   age   of   superannuation   of   its
employees   to   be   58   years,   in   case   it   intended
that   60   years   which   was   the   enhanced   age   of
superannuation of the State Government employees
should   not   be   made   applicable   to   the   employees
of the Nigam. It was also not possible for the
State Government to give a direction purporting
to act under Section 89 of the Act to the effect
that the enhanced age of 60 years would not be
applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   Nigam
treating the same to be a matter of policy nor
was it permissible for the Nigam on the basis of
such a direction of the State Government in the
policy   matter   of   the   Nigam   to   take   an
administrative   decision   acting   under   Section
15(1)   of   the   Act   as   the   same   would   be
inconsistent with Regulation 31 which was framed
by the Nigam in the exercise of powers conferred
upon it under Section 97(2)(c) of the Act.
10.  For   the   foregoing   reasons,   we   are   of   the
view   that   so   long   as   Regulation   31   of   the
Regulations   is   not   amended,   60   years   which   is
the age of superannuation of government servants
employed under the State of Uttar Pradesh shall
be   applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   Nigam.
However, it would be open to the Nigam with the
previous   approval   of   the   State   Government   to
make   suitable   amendment   in   Regulation   31   and
alter the service conditions of employees of the
Nigam, including their age of superannuation. It
is  needless to  say  that if  it  is  so done,  the
same shall be prospective.
11Page 12
11.  For   the   foregoing   reasons,   the   appeals   as
well   as   writ   petitions   are   allowed,   orders
passed   by   the   High   Court   dismissing   the   writ
petitions   as   well   as   those   by   the   Nigam
directing   that   the   appellants   of   the   civil
appeals   and   the   petitioners   of   the   writ
petitions would superannuate upon completion of
the   age   of   58   years   are   set   aside   and   it   is
directed   that   in   case   the   employees   have   been
allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years by
virtue of some interim order, no recovery shall
be   made   from   them   but   in   case,   however,   they
have   not   been   allowed   to   continue   after
completing   the   age   of   58   years   by   virtue   of
erroneous   decision   taken   by   the   Nigam   for   no
fault   of   theirs,   they   would   be   entitled   to
payment of salary for the remaining period up to
the age of 60 years which must be paid to them
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt   of   copy   of   this   order   by   the   Nigam.
There shall be no order as to costs.”
9. After the decision in Harwindra Kumar(supra), the Nigam
in exercise of its powers conferred under sub­sections (1)
and   (2)   of   Section   97   of   the   Act,   1975,   framed   Uttar
Pradesh   Jal   Nigam   Employees   (Retirement   on   the   age   of
Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Regulations, 2005’). It was issued by Office Order
dated 8th December, 2005 and made effective from 30th August,
2005. By Regulation 3 the retirement age of 60 years was
provided but for employees and Engineers who were employed
in erstwhile LSGED and who were transferred and merged in
the   Nigam.   In   Regulation   4,   a   separate   age   of
12Page 13
superannuation   at   the   age   of   58  years   was   prescribed   for
all   other   employees   and   Engineers,   who   were   not   covered
under Regulation 3 i.e. those who were directly appointed
in the Nigam.   Regulation 3 and 4 reads as follows:
“  Retirement   on   attaining   age   of
superannuation:
3.   Age   of   superannuation   of   every
employee   who   was   employed   in   the
Engineering Department of the Local Self
Government   under   Section   37(1)   of   the
Act,   and   has   been   transferred   to   the
Corporation   and   is   employed   in   the
Corporation, will be 60 years.
4.   The   age   of   superannuation   of   the
employees different from those under Rule
3 above, will be 58 years. But the age of
superannuation of the Group ‘D’ employee
who   have   been   employed   prior   to
5.11.1985, will be 60 years.”
After framing the aforesaid Regulation, 2005, the Nigam
filed   a   review   petition   before   this   Court   being   Review
Petition   No.24   of   2006,   seeking   review   of   decision   in
Harwindra   Kumar(supra).  The   review   petition   was   dismissed
by this Court on 29th August, 2006.
10. A number of employees challenged Regulation 4 by filing
Writ   Petition   No.45800   of   2006,   etc.   The   Allahabad   High
13Page 14
Court by  its common judgment dated 21st  May, 2007 allowed
the writ petitions and held that Regulation 4 to the extent
it   provides   superannuation   age   of   58   years   for   those
employees directly recruited is arbitrary and   declared it
non­est. The writ petitioners were allowed to continue in
service till the age of 60 years.
11. As against the aforesaid judgment, the Nigam filed a
special appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court which by order dated 1st August, 2007 stayed the
declaration given by the learned Single Judge.  However, so
far   as   the   writ   petitioners   were   concerned,   no   interim
orders were passed in the said special appeal and as such,
they were allowed to discharge their duties upto the age of
60 years.
12. The Nigam being not satisfied with the order passed by
the Division  Bench  moved  before this  Court   in  Chairman,
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam  & another vs. Radhey Shyam Gautam
and another, 2007 (11) SCC 507.   In the said case, taking
into   consideration   the   earlier   decision   rendered   in
14Page 15
Harwindra Kumar(supra)  and  Jaswant Singh(supra)  this Court
dismissed the appeal with following observation:
“10.  After the amendment made in Rule 56(a) of
the   Rules   by   the   State   Government   and   thereby
enhancing   the   age   of   superannuation   of
government   servants   from   58   years   to   60   years,
the same would equally apply to the employees of
the   Nigam   and   in   case   the   State   Government   as
well as the Nigam intended that the same would
not be applicable, the only option with it was
to   make   suitable   amendment   in   Regulation   31   of
the   Regulations   after   taking   previous   approval
of   the   State   Government   and   by   simply   issuing
direction by the State Government purporting to
act   under   Section   89   of   the   Act   and   thereupon
taking   administrative   decision   by   the   Nigam
under Section 15 of the Act in relation to the
age   of   the   employees   would   not   tantamount   to
amending Regulation 31 of the Regulations.
11.  In  Harwindra   Kumar   case  the   Division   Bench
decision on which the appellant places reliance
was challenged. Orders passed by the High Court
dismissing   the   writ   petitions   as   well   as   those
by   the   Nigam   directing   that   the   appellants   of
the   civil   appeals   and   the   petitioners   of   the
writ   petitions   would   superannuate   upon
completion of the age of 58 years were set aside
and it was directed that in case the employees
have been allowed to continue up to the age of
60   years   by   virtue   of   some   interim   order,   no
recovery   shall   be   made   from   them   but   in   case,
however, they have not been allowed to continue
after completing the age of 58 years by virtue
of erroneous decision taken by the Nigam for no
fault   of   theirs.   They   would   be   entitled   to
payment of salary for the remaining period up to
the age of 60 years which was to be paid to them
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt   of   copy   of   this   Court’s   order   by   the
Nigam.”
15Page 16
13. In   the   meantime,   a   large   number   of   employees   of   the
Nigam, who were forced to retire on attaining the age of 58
years, preferred writ petitions and sought benefit of the
directions given by this Court in  Harwindra Kumar(supra).
The   matter   ultimately,   moved   before   this   Court   in
Chairman,   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam     vs.   Jaswant   Singh   &
others,   2006   (11)   SCC   464.    While   dismissing   the   appeal
this Court observed:
“16.  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:
1. Shri Bhawani Sewak Shukla
2. Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai
3. Shri Girija Shanker
4. Shri Yogendra Prakash Kulshresht
5. Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal
6. Shri Pradumn Prashad Mishra
16Page 17
7. Shri Banke Bihari Pandey
8. Shri Yashwant Singh
9. Shri Chandra Shekhar
And   the   following   persons   filed   writ
petitions   before   retirement   but   no   stay
order was granted:
1. Shri Gopal Singh Dangwal (WP   No.   35384
of 2005 vide order dated 5­5­2005)
2. Shri R.R. Gautam (WP   No.   45495   of   2005
vide order dated 15­6­2005)
17.  The   benefits   shall   only   be   confined   to
abovementioned   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.”
14. In Harwindra Kumar(supra) this Court held that as long
as Regulation 31 is not amended,  60 years which is the age
of superannuation of government servants employed under the
State of Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable to the employees
of the Nigam.   However, liberty was given to the Nigam to
make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 with the previous
approval   of   the   State   Government   to   alter   the   service
conditions of employees of the Nigam, including their age
of superannuation.  It was also made clear that if the same
is done, it shall be prospective.  It appears that in view
17Page 18
of observation of this Court, the Nigam framed Regulations,
2005 but prescribed separate age of superannuation, one for
employees   and   engineers   who   were   employed   in   erstwhile
LSGED and another for those who were directly appointed in
the   Nigam.     Regulations   2005   were   so   framed   without
repealing or amending Regulation 31.
It appears that in view of the subsequent decisions of
this Court, the Nigam vide its Resolution dated 13th April,
2008,  resolved to enhance the age of the superannuation of
the employees, irrespective of their source of entry, to 60
years   and   forwarded  the  same   to  the  State   Government   for
its approval.  The resolution aforesaid reads as follows:
Agenda Item No. Description of
Agenda
Decision taken by
the Board of
Directors
147.07 Regarding
enhancement   of   age
of   superannuation
from   58   years   to
60   years,   of   the
officers   and
officials   working
in   Uttar   Pradesh
Jal   Nigam   ,
similar   to   the
working   Government
employees.
Proposal   approved
by   the   Board   of
Directors   and   it
is   decided   to
refer   to   the
Government   for
obtaining   the
approval   of   the
Government.
18Page 19
15. But   the   State   Government   provided   a   uniform   age   for
superannuation   as   58   years   for   all   employees   working   in
Government   Companies   and   Government   Corporations   by   its
order dated 29th  June, 2009.   For the said reason, by its
order dated 3rd July, 2009, the State Government refused to
accord approval to the recommendations of the Nigam   dated
13th April, 2008.
16. On   being   aggrieved   by   the   said   action   of   the   State
Government   the   employees   of   the   Nigam   preferred   the   writ
petitions   in   question   before   the   Allahabad   High   Court.   A
number of writ petitions were heard together and disposed
of  by the common  impugned judgment dated 29th  July,  2010.
The   other   writ   petitions   which   were   taken   up   or   filed
subsequently   were   disposed   of   by   the   impugned   separate
orders in terms with common judgment dated 29th July, 2010.
17. By the impugned common judgment dated 29th  July, 2010
the   Division   Bench   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court,   Lucknow
Bench,   Lucknow   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.1595(S/B)   of   2009
etc.etc.   declared     “Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam   Employees
(Retirement   on   attaining   age   of   Superannuation)
Regulations”,   2005   unconstitutional   as   it   created   two
19Page 20
classes of employees in determining two separate retirement
age with observation as noticed above.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant­State and the Nigam
assailed the judgment mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The High Court cannot equate the employees of the public
undertakings/corporations with the employees of the State Government for
determination of age of superannuation.
(ii) The High Court was not justified in declaring that all the employees
of the Nigam shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years like State
Government employees, by pre-empting the Nigam from exercising its
power under Section 97 of the Act, 1975.
(iii) The classification between the employees of Local Self-Government
Engineering Department transferred to the Nigam and the employees
directly recruited by the Nigam, in prescribing different age of
superannuation is valid and reasonable.
(iv) The High Court was not justified in setting aside the Jal Nigam
Employees (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations,
2005 in absence of any challenge to the power of the Nigam to frame the
regulations particularly when the petitioners only challenged the Regulation
20Page 21
(v) The High Court committed an error of law in not considering
Section 37(1) of the Act, 1975, which protects the terms and conditions of
service of the employees of erstwhile Local Self-Government Engineering
Department who were transferred to the Nigam on its creation.
(vi) The question of determination of age of superannuation is a matter
of policy of the State Government or the competitive authority of a
Corporation, and the High Court under Article 226 cannot determine the
age of superannuation.
19. Thus, from a detailed analysis and close examination of
facts relating to condition of service of employees of the
Nigam   starting   from   its   constitution   till   today,   the
following facts emerges:
(a) The question relating to age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam
stood finally concluded on 18th November, 2005 when this Court rendered
decision in Harwindra Kumar (supra).
(b) After judgment in Harwindra Kumar (supra) based on liberty given by this
Court, the Nigam framed Regulations, 2005 prescribing two separate age of
superannuation for the employees of the Nigam, without amending Regulation 31.
The Nigam subsequently by Resolution dated 13th April, 2008 proposed to amend
Regulations 2005 prescribing common age of 60 years for superannuation for all
21Page 22
employees of the Nigam. The State Government by its order dated 29th June, 2009
prescribed uniform age of superannuation as 58 years for all the employees
working in the Government Undertakings i.e. Government Companies and
Government Corporations and then in view of such decision, the State
Government refused to accord approval to the recommendations of the Nigam
dated 13th April, 2008 by its letter dated 3rd July, 2009.
20. In   view   of   the   subsequent   development   after   decision
rendered   in  Harwindra   Kumar   (supra)  case,   again   the
question of age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam
has   been   reopened   keeping   in   view   of   such   fact,   the
question   required   to   be   determined   as   raised   in   these
cases.
21. This Court in Harwindra Kumar (supra) held that so long
as Regulation 31 is not amended, 60 years which is the age
of   superannuation   of   the   government   servants   shall   be
applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   Nigam.     However,   in
contravention   of   finding   of   this   Court   without   amending
Regulation 31, new Regulation 3 and 4 of Regulations, 2005
has been framed by the Nigam prescribing two separate age
of superannuation for similarly situated employees.
22Page 23
22. In Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India (1991) 2
SCC 48 this Court held:
“8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed under
Article 14 the position is well settled that the said
right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is
to   protect   persons   similarly   placed   against
discriminatory   treatment.   It   means   that   all   persons
similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in
privileges   conferred   and   liabilities   imposed.
Conversely   discrimination   may   result   if   persons
dissimilarly situate are treated equally. Even amongst
persons similarly situate differential treatment would
be   permissible   between   one   class   and   the   other.   In
that   event   it   is   necessary   that   the   differential
treatment   should   be   founded   on   an   intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that
are grouped together from others left out of the group
and that differentia must have a rational relation to
the   object   sought   to   be   achieved   by   the   statute   in
question.”
23. Since creation of the Nigam, irrespective of source of
recruitment, the employees of the Nigam were treated alike
for   the   purpose   of   superannuation   and   were   allowed   to
superannuate   at   the   age   of   58   years   as   is   evident   from
Regulation 31.
24. As per decision of this Court in  Prem Chand Somchand
Shah   (supra)  even  amongst   persons   similarly   situated
differential   treatment   would   be   permissible   between   one
class and the other.   In that event it is necessary that
23Page 24
the   differential   treatment   should   be   founded   on   an
intelligible   differentia   which   distinguishes   persons   or
things   that  are  grouped  together   from   others   left   out   of
the   group   and   that   differentia   must   have   a   rational
relation   to   the   object   sought   to   be   achieved   by   the
statute.     The appellants, the Nigam as well as the State
of Uttar Pradesh failed to place on record the reasons for
differential   treatment   which   distinguishes   employees   of
erstwhile   LSGED   and   those   who   were   appointed   directly   in
the Nigam.
Further, as employees appointed from different source,
after their appointment were treated alike for the purpose
of superannuation under Regulation 31, subsequently solely
on the basis of source of recruitment no discrimination can
be made and differential treatment would not be permissible
in   the   matter   of   condition   of   service,   including   age   of
superannuation,   in   absence   of   an   intelligible   differentia
distinguishing them from each other. We therefore hold that
the   High   Court   by   impugned   judgment   rightly   declared
Regulations,   2005   unconstitutional   and   ultra   wires   of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
24Page 25
25. Regulation 31 of  the ‘Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Services
of   Engineers   (Public   Health   Branch)   Regulations,   1978’
Special   Regulation;   it   will   not   be   affected   by   later
Regulation 4 of  the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on
attaining   age   of   Superannuation)   Regulations,   2005,   in
absence   of   express   repeal   of   Special   Regulation.   By
implication   it   cannot   be   inferred   that   the   Regulation   31
stands repealed in view of subsequent Regulations, 2005.
26. Even if it is treated that both the General Regulation
4   of   Regulations,   2005   and   Special   Regulation   31   of
Regulations, 1978 co­exist, one which is advantageous i.e.
Regulation   31   shall   be   applicable   to   the   members   of   the
same service.
27. The   State   Government’s   order     dated   29th  June,   2009
prescribing     a  uniform   age   of   superannuation   at  58   years
for the employees working in the Government Companies and
Government   Corporations   cannot   prevail   over   statutory
Regulation 31 framed by the Nigam under Section 97 (2) (C)
of the Act, 1975 with the previous approval of the State
Government.     Therefore,   the   employees   of   the   Nigam   shall
not   be   guided   by   the   State   Government’s   order   dated   29th
25Page 26
June, 2009 but will continue in the services up to the age
of   60   years,   in   view   of   Regulation   31,   having   not   yet
amended or repealed.
28. In Harwindra Kumar (supra) case this Court already held
that   it   is   not   possible   for   the   Nigam   to   take  an
administrative   decision   pursuant   to   the   direction   of   the
State   Government   in   the   matter   of   policy   issued   under
Section   89   of   the   Act   and   directing   that   the   age   of
superannuation   of   60   years   applicable   to   the   Government
servants   shall   not   be   applicable   to  the  employees   of   the
Nigam.   In view of such finding of this Court, the Nigam
cannot   act   on   the   basis   of   the   State   Government’s   order
dated   29th  June,   2009   providing   uniform   age   of
superannuation at 58 years.
29. During   the   pendency   of   these   appeals   further
development   has   taken   place.   The   Government   of   Uttar
Pradesh   by   its   letter   No.3199/9­3­11­113C/2011   dated   23rd
December,   2011   informed   the   Chairman,   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal
Nigam its approval to increase the age of superannuation of
full time regular officers/employees of the Nigam from 58
years to 60 years.   The State Government directed to make
26Page 27
appropriate   amendments   in   the   Regulations   framed   by   the
Nigam, which reads as follows:
“No.3199/9­3­11­113C/2011
From: Vijay Bahadur Singh,
Special Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
To: The Chairman,
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam ,
Lucknow.
Urban Developmetn Section 3 Lucknow dt.
23.12.2011
Sub: For increasing the age of retirement of full
time regular employees of Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam  from 58 years to 60 years.
Sir,
This   is   in   reference   to   your   letter   no.
86/P­1/2005­002/11   dated   23.12.2011   and
Government   order   no.160/44­1­20911­90/2008
dated   20.12.2011   of   the   Public   Enterprises
Bureau Section, on the above subject.
2. In this regard I have been directed to say
that a meeting of the Board of Directors of
Jal Nigam was held on 23.12.2011 and it was
decided   in   the   said   meeting   that   age   of
retirement   of   full   time   regular
officers/employees   of   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal
Nigam     be   increased   from   58   years   to   60
years.   The aforesaid decision of Board was
considered by the Government and Government
has   decided   that   age   of   full   time   regular
officers/employees   of   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal
Nigam     be   increased   from   58   years   to   60
years.
3. However,   the   aforesaid   increase   in   the   age
of   retirement   will   be   subject   to   the
27Page 28
condition that all the additional financial
burden   which   will   be   incurred   due   to
aforesaid increase in the age of retirement,
will   be   borne   by   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam
from   its   own   resources   and   no   financial
assistance   whatsoever   will   be   given   by   the
Government in this regard.
4. I   have   been   further   directed   to   say   that
appropriate   amendments   in   the
rules/regulations/standing   orders   of   the
Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam     pertaining   to
fixation   of   the   age   of   retirement   of   the
personnel of the Jal Nigam will be made by
the Jal Nigam on its own.
Yours
SD/­ Illegible
Vijay Bahadu Singh
Special Secretary.”
30. In view of the finding as recorded above and the State
Government’s   letter   dated   23rd  December,   2011   no
interference   is   called   for   in   the   impugned   judgment,
whereby   the   High   Court   held   Regulations,   2005
unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 and set aside the
orders of retirements.
31. An Interlocutory Application dated 20th March, 2013 has
been   filed   by   the   counsel   for   the   respondent   in   Civil
Appeal   No.5528   of   2012   intimating   that   1st  respondent­
Dayanand Chakrawarty expired on 17th  February, 2013, during
the pendency of the case, leaving behind their legal heirs,
28Page 29
Mrs.   Pramila   Chakrawarty   (widow),   Ms.   Manisha   Chakrawarty
(daughter),   Mr.   Vivekanand   Chakrawarty   (son),   Ms.   Utpana
Chakrawarty   (daughter)   and   Mr.   Sampurna   Nand   Chakrawarty
(son).
32. In   view   of   the   observation   made   in   the   preceding
paragraphs as the employees including the respondents are
entitled   to   get   consequential   benefits,   we   allow   the
petition for substitution to enable the heirs to derive the
benefit of the decision of this Court.
33. Now   the   question   arises   as   to   what   consequential
benefits to which the respondents and other employees who
have not moved before any court of law shall be entitled.
By impugned judgment the High Court observed:
“Similar   benefit   is   already   available   to   the
employees who are continuing in service by virtue
of   interim   order   passed   by   the   competent   court.
They should continue till the age of 60 years.
The   law   helps   those   who   are   vigilant   and   not   to
those who go to sleep as per maxim VIGILANTIBUS,
ET   NON   DORMINTIBUS,   JURA   SUB   VENIUNT.     So,   this
benefit   will   not   be   given   to   the   employees   who
peacefully   retired   on   attaining   the   age   of   58
years and never came before the Court.   But there
may   be   another   class   of   the   employees   who   came
before   this   Court   and   could   not   get   the   interim
order   but   writ   petitions   were   admitted.
29Page 30
Admittedly, these employees have not worked.   So,
on the basis of no pay no work, they will not be
entitled   for   arrears.     However,   their   back   wages
will be restricted @20% of the basic salary as per
the ratio laid down in the case of M/s Gvalli v.
Andhra   Education   Society   2010   AIR   1105   SC.
Lastly, it is clarified that the extended service
will be counted for all the purpose to the above
mentioned   employees.     The   petitions   are   allowed.
No cost.”
34. In  Harwindra   Kumar   vs.   Chief   Engineer,   Karmik   and
others (Supra),  this Court while allowing the employees of
Nigam   to   continue   till   the   age   of   60   years   in   view   of
Regulation 31, ordered that no  recovery shall be made from
those who continued up to the age of 60 years.  This Court
further   observed   that   the   employees   who   have   not   been
allowed to continue after completing the age of 58 years by
virtue   of   erroneous   decision   taken   by   the   Nigam   for   no
fault   of   theirs,   would   also   be   entitled   to   payment   of
salary for the remaining period up to the age of 60 years.
35. In  Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam   vs. Radhey Shyam Gautam,
2007   (11)   SCC   507,  following   the   decision   in  Harwindra
Kumar (supra)  case,  this Court held that  the employees of
30Page 31
the   Nigam   shall   be   entitled   for   full   salary   for   the
remaining period up to the age of 60 years.
36. However, in    U.P. Jal Nigam   vs. Jaswant Singh, 2006
(11) SCC 464 this Court allowed the benefits of arrears of
salary only to those employees of the Nigam who had filed
writ petitions and denied the same to others who have not
moved before a court of law.
37. In view of the orders passed by this Court in Harwindra
Kumar(supra),   Radhey   Shyam   Gautam(supra)   and   Jaswant
Singh(supra), it was not open to the High Court to rely on
some other decision of this Court,   ratio of which is not
applicable in the present case for determining back wages
of   respondents     restricting   it   to   be   20%     of   the   basic
salary. We observe that the principle of ‘no pay no work’
is   not   applicable   to   the   employees   who   were   guided   by
specific   rules   like   Leave   Rules   etc.   relating   to   absence
from   duty.     Such   principle   can   be   applied   to   only   those
employees who were not guided by any specific rule relating
to absence from duty.   If an employee is prevented by the
employer from performing his duties,   the employee cannot
31Page 32
be blamed for  having not worked, and the principle of  ‘no
pay no work’  shall not be applicable to such employee.
38. 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:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
32Page 33
(c) 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.
39. The   judgment   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the
Allahabad   High   Court,   Lucknow   Bench   dated   29th  July,   2010
and other impugned judgments stand modified to the extent
above.   The   appeals   are   disposed   of   with   aforesaid
observation and directions.  There shall be no order as to
costs.
………..……………………………………………..J.
(G.S. SINGHVI)
……..……………………………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 2,  2013.
33

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,865,401 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com