S.N.DWIVEDI, V.G.OAK, A.P.SRIVASTAVA
RAM AUTAR PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, validity of a Government notification lowering the age of superannuation has been challenged. Ram Autar Pandey is the petitioner. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Judge, Mainpuri are the two opposite Parties.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was born on the 4th of May 1906. He joined service in 1929 in Mainpuri judgeship. He is at present occupying the post of Record Keeper in the said judgeship. Under rule 56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, it was laid down that the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. By a Government notification issued on 27-11-1957 (hereafter referred to as 1957 notification) the figure 58 was substituted for the figure 55 in Fundamental Rule 56. According to this notification, the petitioner could remain in service till the completion of 58 years. It was expected that he would not retire from service till May 1964.
( 3 ) ON 25-5-1961, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued two notifications. By the first notification dated 25-5-1961 (hereafter referred to as the principal notification), it was laid down that the figure 55 sha
REFERRED TO : Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Anil Nath De v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta
Satish Chandra v. Union of India
State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das
Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, AIR 1945 PC 156
Chatturam Horiram Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax B. and O.
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India
State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.