SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 569

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - APPELLANT
Versus
DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5527 OF 2012 (arising out of SLP (c) No. 31279 of 2010) with C.A.No.5528 of 2012 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No.35579 of 2010)
C.A.No.5617-5659 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)
Decided on: 2-7-2013

IMPORTANT POINTS
General law cannot prevail over a Special law unless it is expressly or impliedly repealed.
Executive instructions cannot prevail over statutory provisions.
Principle of ’no work no pay’ not applicable to employees guided by specific rules like Leave Rules etc.

Headnote:(a) Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on the age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 - Regulations 3 and 4 - Superannuation - Age of - Regulation 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Services of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978 prescribing uniform age of superannuation for all employees irrespective of source of recruitment - Regulations 3 and 4 of Regulations 2005 providing for two ages depending upon source of recruitment - Supreme Court striking down the same being discriminatory unless Regulation 31 amended - Liberty given to do so with prior approval of State Government - Appellant continuing with Regulations 2005 providing for two age of superannuation without amending Regulation 31 of Regulations 1978 - Not permissible - Regulation 2005 held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 21, 23 and 24)

        (2005) 13 SCC 300; (2007) 11 SCC 507; (2006) 11 SCC 464; (1991) 2 SCC 48 - Relied upon

        (b) Interpretation of Statutes - Special Regulation - Provisions of special regulations, unless expressly repealed, will not be affected by later general regulation - Unless Regulation 31 of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Services of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978 not repealed even impliedly - Will not be affected by Regulations 3 and 4 of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 - Even assuming that provisions of both Regulations 1978 and 2005 co-exist, the one advantageous to employees will be applicable. (Paras 25 and 26)

        (c) Administration of Justice - Judicial propriety - Executive instructions cannot prevail upon statutory regulations. (Paras 27 and 28)

        (d) Service Law - Principle of ’no work no pay’ - Not applicable to employees guided by specific rules like Leave Rules etc. relating to absence from duty - An employee prevented by employer from performing his duty cannot be blamed for having not worked. (Para 37)

       Facts of the case:

        These appeals relate to constitutional validity of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on attaining age of superannuation) Rules, 2005 fixing two different age of retirement for different employees.

       Finding of the Court:

        Regulations, 2005 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

       Result : Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT

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, 5218-60 of 2011) have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others against the common 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 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 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 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 employ




















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top