Advocates:
['R K OJHA', '', 'SAMEER SHARMA', 'C S C', '', 'V K SINGH', 'P AGARWAL']

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55957 of 2000

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.

Respondent :- D.N. Pandey And Anr.

Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Ojha,Sameer Sharma

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P Agarwal,V.K.Singh

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

List revised. None appears for respondent workman.

Heard Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Present writ petition has been filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. against the

award dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Kanpur, in

Adjudication Case No. 211 of 1999.

The above adjudication case had arisen from the following

reference made, vide order dated 6.10.1999:

"Kya Sewayojakon Dwara Shramik Shri Tej Narayan Pandey Putra Shri

Devi Prasad Pandey, Parichalak, U.P.S.R.T.C., Azad Nagar Depo,

Kanpur, Ki Sewa Nivitri Aayu 60 Varsh Nirdharit Hone Ke Bavjood Bhi 58

Varsh Ki Aayu Par Hi Aadesh Dinaank 1.2.95 Se Sewa Samaampt Kiya

Jaana Ucchit Evam Vaidhanik Hai? Yadi Nahin Toh Sambhandhit Shramik

Kya Hitlaabh/Chatipoorti Paane Ka Adhikari Hai? Kis Tithi Evam Anya

Kis Vivaran Ke Saath?"

The Labour Court had returned an award in favour of the

respondent workman declaring his age of retirement would

have been 60 years. Undisputedly, the respondent workman had

worked on the post of Conductor in the petitioner's

establishment. Undisputedly, his original date of superannuation

was 31.1.1995.

In such facts, it has been submitted, the issue involved is

squarely covered by a division bench of this Court in U.P. State

Road Transport Corporation vs. Naresh Kumar Srivastava

& Ors., 2018 (Suppl) ADJ 600. By the aforesaid decision, the

division bench of this Court has reached the finding that the

retirement age of 60 years would be applicable w.e.f. 26.7.2012

i.e. to only such employees/conductors, who attained the age of

superannuation on or after that date. Clearly, the petitioner is

ineligible to extension of the age of retirement, to 60 years.

In view of the above, the impugned award dated 24.8.2000 is

set aside. However, if any amount has been paid to the

respondent workman over and above his entitlement, the same

may not be recovered from him, now.

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. No order as to

costs.

The amount deposited under the interim order dated 4.1.2001

passed by this Court, may be returned to the petitioner together

with accrued interest, if any.

Order Date :- 27.5.2022

Prakhar

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR

SRIVASTAVA

Date: 2022.05.30 12:44:42 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad