Court No.22
Writ Petition No.5060 (S/S) of 2010
Rajendra Pandey ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ......Opposite parties
AND
Writ Petition No.5061 (S/S) of 2010
Sachchida Nand Mishra ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ......Opposite parties
AND
Writ Petition No.5067 (S/S) of 2010
Ghanendra Kumar Gupta ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others ......Opposite parties
AND
Writ Petition No.5068 (S/S) of 2010
Subhash Chandra Mittal ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others ......Opposite parties
AND
Writ Petition No.5069 (S/S) of 2010
Harish Chandra Tiwari ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others ......Opposite parties
AND
Writ Petition No.5070 (S/S) of 2010
Naresh Chandra Mittal ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ......Opposite parties
AND
Writ Petition No.5071 (S/S) of 2010
Udai Pratap Singh ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ......Opposite parties
Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned
Standing Counsel while notice on behalf of U.P. Jal Nigam has been
accepted by Sri I.P. Singh, who pray for and are allowed four weeks’ time for
filing counter affidavit. Petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit within two
weeks thereafter.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
The judgment in regard to the validity/vires of the Rules of 2005 has
been reserved by a Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the
2
petitioners argues that since the judgment has not been rendered, as such the
petitioners may be allowed to continue. The said argument if accepted will
lead to only one conclusion that the Court has to presume that the
Regulations of 2005 are ultravires. This presumption unless Regulations are
declared ultravires cannot be drawn by the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners claims the benefit of Regulation 31
of the U.P. Jal Nigam Karamchari (Adhivarshata Par Sevanivriti)
Viniyamavali, 2005 (for short “the Regulations of 2005”).
Learned counsel for the opposite parties states that in pursuance to the
observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Regulations of 2005 have
been framed wherein the age of retirement of all employees has been fixed as
58 years and a distinction has been drawn in respect of the employees, who
are employed in the erstwhile LSGED department and thereby opposite
parties have proceeded to treat the two classes as different. It is, therefore,
submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that such distinction is
permissible under law and it was done only with a view to protect the service
conditions of the erstwhile LSGED employees.
In this view of the matter, no interim relief can be granted to the
petitioners at this stage. The interim relief applications are rejected.
However, it will be open for the petitioners to move interim relief
applications as and when the verdict of the Division Bench is given.
26.07.2010
RBS/-