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

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55958 of 2000

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

Respondent :- S.P. Vajpayee And Anr.

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

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

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. List revised. None appears for respondent workman.

2. Heard Shri Vrindavan Mishra, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

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

against the award dated 30.06.2000 passed by the

Labour Court, Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 121 of

1999.

4. The above adjudication case had arisen from the

following reference made, vide order dated 19.05.1999:

"Kya sewayojakon dwara shramik S P Vajpayee putra swargiya

Ram Das Vajpayee, Junior Foreman Tyre ki sewaye 60 varsh sewa

nivritti ki tithi ke poorn hone ke poorv 58 varsh ki aayu mai hi

dinank 31.08.1975 dwara apranh se relieve kar dinaank 1.9.95

dwara karya se prithak/vanchit kia jaana ucchit evam vaidhanik

hai? Yadi nahin toh sambhandhit shramik kya hitlaabh/chatipoorti

paane ka adhikari hai? Kis kithi evam anya kis vivaran ke saath?"

5. 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 junior foreman tyre in

the petitioner's establishment. Undisputedly, his original

date of superannuation was 31.08.1995.

6. In such facts, it has been submitted, the issue involved

is squarely covered by a division bench decision 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 held the retirement age at 60 years would be

applicable w.e.f. 26.7.2012 i.e. to only such employees,

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.

7. In view of the above, the impugned award dated

30.6.2000 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.

8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. No

order as to costs.

9. 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

S.Chaurasia

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM

CHAURASIA

Date: 2022.05.31 13:03:21 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad