STATE OF U.P. vs. DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY .

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5527 OF 2012 (arising out of SLP (c) No. 31279 of 2010)

With JUDGMENT J U D G M E N T 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, 5218­60 of 2011) have been preferred by the  State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   others   against   the   common  1 Page 1 th judgment dated 29  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 

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  JUDGMENT 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  th th  judgments   subsequently   passed   on   29   April,   2010,   17 th th rd  August, 2010, 16   September, 2010, 28   October, 2010, 3 2 Page 2 December,   2010   which   were   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the  th aforesaid judgment dated 29  July, 2010. Before   the   High   Court   Writ   Petition   No.1191(SB)   of 

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  rd th  further to quash the orders dated 3   July, 2009 and 29 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  JUDGMENT 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  3 Page 3 on attaining the age of 58 years as per the provisions of  Regulations, 2005. 2. The questions involved in these appeals are:

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: JUDGMENT   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  4 Page 4 was   converted   from   PHED.     All   the   engineering   works   of  Local   Self   Government   were   entrusted   to   the   said   newly  created department. 

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 employees  and   engineers   of   the   Local   Self­Government   Engineering  Department (LSGED) will be transferred and merged into the  newly created Nigam on the same terms and conditions, which  were   governing   their   services   prior   to   such   absorption,  till the said service conditions are altered/changed by the  JUDGMENT Rules or Regulations framed in accordance with law.  th 5. In its second meeting dated 4  April, 1977 vide Agenda  Item   No.2.21   the   Board   of     Nigam   resolved   that   all   the  provisions   of   Financial   Handbook,   Manual   of   Government  Order, Civil Services Regulations, Government Servant Rules  and   other   Government   orders   shall   be   applicable   to   the  5 Page 5 employees of the Nigam, provided the Nigam has not passed  any other order.   Initially, in exercise of powers conferred under sub­

of Act, 1975 and with the previous approval of the State  Government, the Nigam made regulations for regulating the  recruitment to the posts and the conditions of service of  persons appointed to the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Service of  Engineers (Public Health Branch) known as the Uttar Pradesh  Service   of   Engineers   (Public   Health   Branch)   Regulations,  1977. 6. Subsequently,   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under  sub­section   (1)   and   clause   (c)     of   sub­section   (2)   of  Section 97 of the Act, 1975, and with the previous approval  JUDGMENT of the State Government, Nigam  made the “Uttar Pradesh Jal  Nigam   Services   of   Engineers   (Public   Health   Branch)  Regulations,   1978”   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the  “Regulations, 1978”) for regulating the recruitment to the  posts and the conditions of service of persons appointed to  the Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch). The said  Regulations,   1978   were   made   equally   applicable   to   the  6 Page 6 employees transferred and merged from the erstwhile LSGED  and the employees directly recruited by the Nigam and it  th came   into   force   w.e.f.   27   April,   1978.     Regulation   31 

“ Regulation   31 .­   Except   as   provided   in  these   regulations   the   pay,   allowance,  pension, leave, imposition of penalties and  other conditions of service of the members  of the service shall be regulated by rules,  regulations or orders applicable generally  to   the   Government   Service   in   connection  with the affairs of the state.”   7. There   is   no   separate   provision   for   age   of  superannuation of employees of the Nigam prescribed under  Regulations,   1978.   As   per   Regulation,   31,   the   terms   and  conditions of service of the employees of the Nigam shall  JUDGMENT be   governed   by   the   same   rules,   regulations   and   orders  generally   applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   State  Government  and hence the retirement and superannuation age  of   employees   of   the   Nigam   shall   stand   governed   by   the  provisions of Rule 56(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental  Rules contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part  II­IV, which reads as follows: 7 Page 7

The age of retirement of the State Government employees  as per Rule 56(a) of Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules was 58  years.   In  the year 2001, the State Government  vide its  th Official   Order   No.1098/A­1/2001   dated   28   November,   2001  informed of its intention to amend clause (a) of Rule 56.  Consequently, Rule 56(a) was amended by “The Uttar Pradesh  Fundamental   (Amendment)   Rules,   2002”   vide   Notification  th th  dated   27   June,   2002,   which   came   into   force   on   28 JUDGMENT November, 2001.  As per the amended  clause (c) of Rule 56,  the age of superannuation of the State Government employees  was   enhanced   from   58   years   to   60   years,   which   reads   as  follows:  “ Rule 56(a). Except as otherwise provided in  this rule, every government servant shall  retire from service on the afternoon of the  last day of the month in which he attains  the age of sixty years. 8 Page 8 Provided   that   a   Government   servant   whose  date of birth is the first day of a month  shall retire from service on the afternoon  of the last day of the preceding month on  attaining the age of sixty years. 

8. In the meantime, after issuance of Government’s order  expressing its intention to amend clause (a) of Rule 56 by  th Notification   dated   28   November,   2001,   the   Nigam   by   its  st letter   dated   31   December,   2001   enquired   from   the   State  Government as to whether the benefit of enhancement in the  age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years would be  applicable to the employees of the Nigam or not. In reply  thereto just before the Amendment Rules, 2002, the special  JUDGMENT Secretary to the State Government from its Department of  nd Local   Self   Government   by   his   letter   dated   22   January,  2002, conveyed that the employees of the Nigam shall not be  entitled to the enhancement of age of superannuation from  58 years to 60 years as the same would be applicable only  to the State Government employees. On receipt of the said  th letter,   on   11   July,   2002   the     Nigam     resolved   that  9 Page 9 enhancement in the age of superannuation from 58 years to  60 years would not be applicable to the employees of the  Nigam.  

January,   2002   and   the   decision   of   the   Nigam   vide   Office  Memorandum   dated   11th   July,   2002     a   number   of   writ  petitions were preferred by the employees of the Nigam who  were being sought to  retire on completing the age of  58  years. Some of the employees directly filed writ petitions  before   this   Court   challenging   the   orders   issued   by   the  Nigam     against   them   to   the   effect   that   they   would  superannuate upon completion of 58 years.   This Court by  its judgment in  Harwindra Kumar vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik  and   others,   2005   (13)   SCC   300   directed   the   Nigam     to  JUDGMENT continue   the   petitioners   of   those   cases   in   service   till  they attain the age of 60 years and the orders directing  their retirement at the age of 58 years were set aside with  the following observation: “9.  In the present case, as the Regulations have  been   framed   by   the   Nigam   specifically  enumerating   in   Regulation   31   thereof   that   the  Rules   governing   the   service   conditions   of  government servants shall equally apply to the  employees of the Nigam, it was not possible for  10 Page 10

JUDGMENT   For   the   foregoing   reasons,   we   are   of   the  10. view   that   so   long   as   Regulation   31   of   the  Regulations   is   not   amended,   60   years   which   is  the age of superannuation of government servants  employed under the State of Uttar Pradesh shall  be   applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   Nigam.  However, it would be open to the Nigam with the  previous   approval   of   the   State   Government   to  make   suitable   amendment   in   Regulation   31   and  alter the service conditions of employees of the  Nigam, including their age of superannuation. It  is needless to say that if it is so done, the  same shall be prospective. 11 Page 11

9. After the decision in  Harwindra Kumar(supra) , the Nigam  in exercise of its powers conferred under sub­sections (1)  and   (2)   of   Section   97   of   the   Act,   1975,   framed   Uttar  Pradesh   Jal   Nigam   Employees   (Retirement   on   the   age   of  JUDGMENT Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to  as the ‘Regulations, 2005’). It was issued by Office Order  th th dated 8  December, 2005 and made effective from 30  August,  2005. By Regulation 3 the retirement age of 60 years was  provided but for employees and Engineers who were employed  in erstwhile LSGED and who were transferred and merged in  the   Nigam.   In   Regulation   4,   a   separate   age   of  12 Page 12 superannuation at the age of 58 years was prescribed for  all   other   employees   and   Engineers,   who   were   not   covered  under Regulation 3 i.e. those who were directly appointed 

“   Retirement   on   attaining   age   of  superannuation: 3 .   Age   of   superannuation   of   every  employee   who   was   employed   in   the  Engineering Department of the Local Self  Government   under   Section   37(1)   of   the  Act,   and   has   been   transferred   to   the  Corporation   and   is   employed   in   the  Corporation, will be 60 years. 4 .   The   age   of   superannuation   of   the  employees different from those under Rule  3 above, will be 58 years. But the age of  superannuation of the Group ‘D’ employee  who   have   been   employed   prior   to  5.11.1985, will be 60 years.” After framing the aforesaid Regulation, 2005, the Nigam  JUDGMENT filed   a   review   petition   before   this   Court   being   Review  Petition   No.24   of   2006,   seeking   review   of   decision   in  Harwindra Kumar(supra).   The review petition was dismissed  th by this Court on 29  August, 2006. 10. A number of employees challenged Regulation 4 by filing  Writ   Petition   No.45800   of   2006,   etc.   The   Allahabad   High  13 Page 13 st Court by its common judgment dated 21   May, 2007 allowed  the writ petitions and held that Regulation 4 to the extent  it   provides   superannuation   age   of   58   years   for   those 

service till the age of 60 years. 11. As against the aforesaid judgment, the Nigam filed a  special appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad  st High Court which by order dated 1  August, 2007 stayed the  declaration given by the learned Single Judge.  However, so  far   as   the   writ   petitioners   were   concerned,   no   interim  orders were passed in the said special appeal and as such,  they were allowed to discharge their duties upto the age of  60 years.  JUDGMENT 12. The Nigam being not satisfied with the order passed by  the Division Bench moved before this Court   in   Chairman,  Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam  & another vs. Radhey Shyam Gautam   and another, 2007 (11) SCC 507.    In the said case, taking  into   consideration   the   earlier   decision   rendered   in  14 Page 14 Harwindra Kumar(supra)   and   Jaswant Singh(supra)   this Court  dismissed the appeal with following observation: 

11.   In  Harwindra Kumar case  the Division Bench  decision on which the appellant places reliance  was challenged. Orders passed by the High Court  dismissing the writ petitions as well as those  by   the   Nigam   directing   that   the   appellants   of  the   civil   appeals   and   the   petitioners   of   the  writ   petitions   would   superannuate   upon  completion of the age of 58 years were set aside  and it was directed that in case the employees  have been allowed to continue up to the age of  60   years   by   virtue   of   some   interim   order,   no  recovery shall be made from them but in case,  however, they have not been allowed to continue  after completing the age of 58 years by virtue  of erroneous decision taken by the Nigam for no  fault   of   theirs.   They   would   be   entitled   to  payment of salary for the remaining period up to  the age of 60 years which was to be paid to them   within a period of three months from the date of  receipt   of   copy   of   this   Court's   order   by   the  Nigam.” JUDGMENT 15 Page 15 13. In the meantime, a large number of employees of the  Nigam, who were forced to retire on attaining the age of 58  years, preferred writ petitions and sought benefit of the 

Chairman,   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam     vs.   Jaswant   Singh   &  others,   2006   (11)   SCC   464.     While   dismissing   the   appeal  this Court observed:   Therefore,   in   case   at   this   belated  “16. stage if  similar relief is  to be given to  the   persons   who   have   not   approached   the  court that will unnecessarily overburden the  Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse  with   the   liability   of   payment   to   these  persons   in   terms   of   two   years'   salary   and  increased   benefit   of   pension   and   other  consequential   benefits.   Therefore,   we   are  not   inclined   to   grant   any   relief   to   the  persons who have approached the court after  their   retirement.   Only   those   persons   who  have filed the writ petitions when they were  in   service   or   who   have   obtained   interim  order   for   their   retirement,   those   persons  should   be   allowed   to   stand   to   benefit   and  not others. We  have been given a chart of  those nine persons, who filed writ petitions  and   obtained   stay   and   are   continuing   in  service. They are as follows: JUDGMENT 1. Shri Bhawani Sewak Shukla 2. Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai 3. Shri Girija Shanker 4. Shri Yogendra Prakash Kulshresht 5. Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal 6. Shri Pradumn Prashad Mishra 16 Page 16 7. Shri Banke Bihari Pandey 8. Shri Yashwant Singh 9. Shri Chandra Shekhar

17.   The benefits shall only be confined to  abovementioned   persons   who   have   filed   writ  petitions   before   their   retirement   or   they  have   obtained   interim   order   before   their  retirement. The appeals filed against these  persons by the Nigam shall fail and the same  are   dismissed.   Rest   of   the   appeals   are  allowed and orders passed by the High Court  are set aside. There would be no order as to  costs.” 14. In  Harwindra Kumar(supra)  this Court held that as long  as Regulation 31 is not amended,  60 years which is the age  of superannuation of government servants employed under the  JUDGMENT State of Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable to the employees  of the Nigam.   However, liberty was given to the Nigam to  make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 with the previous  approval   of   the   State   Government   to   alter   the   service  conditions of employees of the Nigam, including their age  of superannuation.  It was also made clear that if the same  is done, it shall be prospective.  It appears that in view  17 Page 17 of observation of this Court, the Nigam framed Regulations,  2005 but prescribed separate age of superannuation, one for  employees   and   engineers   who   were   employed   in   erstwhile 

repealing or amending Regulation 31. It appears that in view of the subsequent decisions of  th this Court, the Nigam vide its Resolution dated 13  April,  2008,  resolved to enhance the age of the superannuation of  the employees, irrespective of their source of entry, to 60  years and forwarded the same to the State Government for  its approval.  The resolution aforesaid reads as follows: Agenda Item No. Description of  Decision taken by  Agenda the Board of  Directors JUDGMENT 147.07 Regarding  enhancement of age  of   superannuation  from   58   years   to  60   years,   of   the  officers   and  officials   working  in   Uttar   Pradesh  Jal   Nigam   ,  similar   to   the  working   Government  employees. Proposal   approved  by   the   Board   of  Directors   and   it  is   decided   to  refer   to   the  Government   for  obtaining   the  approval   of   the  Government.  18 Page 18 15. But   the   State   Government   provided   a   uniform   age   for  superannuation   as   58   years   for   all   employees   working   in  Government   Companies   and   Government   Corporations   by   its 

accord approval to the recommendations of the Nigam   dated  th 13  April, 2008.  16. On   being   aggrieved   by   the   said   action   of   the   State  Government the employees of the Nigam preferred the writ  petitions in question before the Allahabad High Court. A  number of writ petitions were heard together and disposed  th of by the common impugned judgment dated 29   July, 2010.  The   other   writ   petitions   which   were   taken   up   or   filed  subsequently   were   disposed   of   by   the   impugned   separate  JUDGMENT th orders in terms with common judgment dated 29  July, 2010.  th 17. By the impugned common judgment dated 29   July, 2010  the   Division   Bench   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court,   Lucknow  Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition (C) No.1595(S/B) of 2009  etc.etc.   declared     “Uttar   Pradesh   Jal   Nigam   Employees  (Retirement   on   attaining   age   of   Superannuation)  Regulations”,   2005   unconstitutional   as   it   created   two  19 Page 19 classes of employees in determining two separate retirement  age with observation as noticed above. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant­State and the Nigam 

(i) The High Court cannot equate the employees of the public undertakings/corporations with the employees of the State Government for determination of age of superannuation. (ii) The High Court was not justified in declaring that all the employees of the Nigam shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years like State Government employees, by pre-empting the Nigam from exercising its power under Section 97 of the Act, 1975. (iii) The classification between the employees of Local Self-Government Engineering Department transferred to the Nigam and the employees JUDGMENT directly recruited by the Nigam, in prescribing different age of superannuation is valid and reasonable. (iv) The High Court was not justified in setting aside the Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 in absence of any challenge to the power of the Nigam to frame the regulations particularly when the petitioners only challenged the Regulation 20 Page 20 (v) The High Court committed an error of law in not considering Section 37(1) of the Act, 1975, which protects the terms and conditions of service of the employees of erstwhile Local Self-Government Engineering

(vi) The question of determination of age of superannuation is a matter of policy of the State Government or the competitive authority of a Corporation, and the High Court under Article 226 cannot determine the age of superannuation. 19. Thus, from a detailed analysis and close examination of  facts relating to condition of service of employees of the  Nigam   starting   from   its   constitution   till   today,   the  following facts emerges: (a) The question relating to age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam JUDGMENT th stood finally concluded on 18 November, 2005 when this Court rendered decision in Harwindra Kumar (supra). (b) After judgment in Harwindra Kumar (supra) based on liberty given by this Court, the Nigam framed Regulations, 2005 prescribing two separate age of superannuation for the employees of the Nigam, without amending Regulation 31. th The Nigam subsequently by Resolution dated 13 April, 2008 proposed to amend Regulations 2005 prescribing common age of 60 years for superannuation for all 21 Page 21 th employees of the Nigam. The State Government by its order dated 29 June, 2009 prescribed uniform age of superannuation as 58 years for all the employees working in the Government Undertakings i.e. Government Companies and

th rd dated 13 April, 2008 by its letter dated 3 July, 2009. 20. In view of the subsequent development after decision  rendered   in   Harwindra   Kumar   (supra)   case,   again   the  question of age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam  has   been   reopened   keeping   in   view   of   such   fact,   the  question   required   to   be   determined   as   raised   in   these  cases.   21. This Court in  Harwindra Kumar (supra)  held that so long  as Regulation 31 is not amended, 60 years which is the age  JUDGMENT of   superannuation   of   the   government   servants   shall   be  applicable   to   the   employees   of   the   Nigam.     However,   in  contravention   of   finding   of   this   Court   without   amending  Regulation 31, new Regulation 3 and 4 of Regulations, 2005  has been framed by the Nigam prescribing two separate age  of superannuation for similarly situated employees.  22 Page 22 22. In  Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India (1991) 2  SCC 48  this Court held:

23. Since creation of the Nigam, irrespective of source of  recruitment, the employees of the Nigam were treated alike  for   the   purpose   of   superannuation   and   were   allowed   to  JUDGMENT superannuate   at   the   age   of   58   years   as   is   evident   from  Regulation 31.    24. As per decision of this Court in   Prem Chand Somchand  Shah   (supra)   even  amongst   persons   similarly   situated  differential   treatment   would   be   permissible   between   one  class and the other.   In that event it is necessary that  23 Page 23 the   differential   treatment   should   be   founded   on   an  intelligible   differentia   which   distinguishes   persons   or  things that are grouped together from others left out of 

statute.     The appellants, the Nigam as well as the State  of Uttar Pradesh failed to place on record the reasons for  differential   treatment   which   distinguishes   employees   of  erstwhile LSGED and those who were appointed directly in  the Nigam.   Further, as employees appointed from different source,  after their appointment were treated alike for the purpose  of superannuation under Regulation 31, subsequently solely  on the basis of source of recruitment no discrimination can  JUDGMENT be made and differential treatment would not be permissible  in   the   matter   of   condition   of   service,   including   age   of  superannuation, in absence of an intelligible differentia  distinguishing them from each other. We therefore hold that  the   High   Court   by   impugned   judgment   rightly   declared  Regulations,   2005   unconstitutional   and   ultra   wires   of  Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  24 Page 24 25. Regulation 31 of  the ‘Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Services  of   Engineers   (Public   Health   Branch)   Regulations,   1978’  Special   Regulation;   it   will   not   be   affected   by   later 

absence   of   express   repeal   of   Special   Regulation.   By  implication it cannot be inferred that the Regulation 31  stands repealed in view of subsequent Regulations, 2005.  26. Even if it is treated that both the General Regulation  4   of   Regulations,   2005   and   Special   Regulation   31   of  Regulations, 1978 co­exist, one which is advantageous i.e.  Regulation   31   shall   be   applicable   to   the   members   of   the  same service.  th 27. The   State   Government’s   order     dated   29   June,   2009  JUDGMENT prescribing   a uniform age of superannuation at 58 years  for the employees working in the Government Companies and  Government   Corporations   cannot   prevail   over   statutory  Regulation 31 framed by the Nigam under Section 97 (2) (C)  of the Act, 1975 with the previous approval of the State  Government.   Therefore, the employees of the Nigam shall  th  not   be   guided   by   the   State   Government’s   order   dated   29 25 Page 25 June, 2009 but will continue in the services up to the age  of   60   years,   in   view   of   Regulation   31,   having   not   yet  amended or repealed.   

that   it   is   not   possible   for   the   Nigam   to   take  an  administrative   decision   pursuant   to   the   direction   of   the  State   Government   in   the   matter   of   policy   issued   under  Section   89   of   the   Act   and   directing   that   the   age   of  superannuation   of   60   years   applicable   to   the   Government  servants shall not be applicable to the employees of the  Nigam.   In view of such finding of this Court, the Nigam  cannot   act   on   the   basis   of   the   State   Government’s   order  th dated   29   June,   2009   providing   uniform   age   of  superannuation at 58 years.    JUDGMENT 29. During   the   pendency   of   these   appeals   further  development   has   taken   place.   The   Government   of   Uttar  rd  Pradesh   by   its   letter   No.3199/9­3­11­113C/2011   dated   23 December,   2011   informed   the   Chairman,   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal  Nigam its approval to increase the age of superannuation of  full time regular officers/employees of the Nigam from 58  years to 60 years.   The State Government directed to make  26 Page 26 appropriate   amendments   in   the   Regulations   framed   by   the  Nigam, which reads as follows:

To: The Chairman,  Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam , Lucknow. Urban Developmetn Section 3 Lucknow dt.  23.12.2011 Sub: For increasing the age of retirement of full  time regular employees of Uttar Pradesh Jal  Nigam  from 58 years to 60 years. Sir, This   is   in   reference   to   your   letter   no.  86/P­1/2005­002/11   dated   23.12.2011   and  Government   order   no.160/44­1­20911­90/2008  dated   20.12.2011   of   the   Public   Enterprises  Bureau Section, on the above subject. 2. In this regard I have been directed to say  that a meeting of the Board of Directors of  Jal Nigam was held on 23.12.2011 and it was  decided   in   the   said   meeting   that   age   of  retirement   of   full   time   regular  officers/employees   of   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal  Nigam     be   increased   from   58   years   to   60  years.  The aforesaid decision of Board was  considered by the Government and Government  has   decided   that   age   of   full   time   regular  officers/employees   of   Uttar   Pradesh   Jal  Nigam     be   increased   from   58   years   to   60  years.  JUDGMENT 3. However, the aforesaid increase in the age  of   retirement   will   be   subject   to   the  27 Page 27

Yours SD/­ Illegible Vijay Bahadu Singh Special Secretary.” 30. In view of the finding as recorded above and the State  rd Government’s   letter   dated   23   December,   2011   no  interference   is   called   for   in   the   impugned   judgment,  whereby   the   High   Court   held   Regulations,   2005  JUDGMENT unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 and set aside the  orders of retirements.  th 31. An Interlocutory Application dated 20  March, 2013 has  been   filed   by   the   counsel   for   the   respondent   in   Civil  st Appeal   No.5528   of   2012   intimating   that   1   respondent­ th Dayanand Chakrawarty expired on 17  February, 2013, during  the pendency of the case, leaving behind their legal heirs,  28 Page 28 Mrs. Pramila Chakrawarty (widow), Ms. Manisha Chakrawarty  (daughter),   Mr.   Vivekanand   Chakrawarty   (son),   Ms.   Utpana  Chakrawarty   (daughter)   and   Mr.   Sampurna   Nand   Chakrawarty  (son).   32. In   view   of   the   observation   made   in   the   preceding  paragraphs as the employees including the respondents are  entitled   to   get   consequential   benefits,   we   allow   the  petition for substitution to enable the heirs to derive the  benefit of the decision of this Court.   33. Now   the   question   arises   as   to   what   consequential  benefits to which the respondents and other employees who  have not moved before any court of law shall be entitled.   By impugned judgment the High Court observed: JUDGMENT “Similar   benefit   is   already   available   to   the  employees who are continuing in service by virtue  of   interim   order   passed   by   the   competent   court.  They should continue till the age of 60 years. The law helps those who are vigilant and not to   those who go to sleep as per maxim VIGILANTIBUS,  ET NON DORMINTIBUS, JURA SUB VENIUNT.   So, this  benefit   will   not   be   given   to   the   employees   who  peacefully   retired   on   attaining   the   age   of   58  years and never came before the Court.  But there  may   be   another   class   of   the   employees   who   came  before this Court and could not get the interim  order   but   writ   petitions   were   admitted.  29 Page 29

34. In   Harwindra   Kumar   vs.   Chief   Engineer,   Karmik   and  others (Supra),  this Court while allowing the employees of  Nigam   to   continue   till   the   age   of   60   years   in   view   of  Regulation 31, ordered that no  recovery shall be made from  those who continued up to the age of 60 years.  This Court  further   observed   that   the   employees   who   have   not   been  allowed to continue after completing the age of 58 years by  virtue   of   erroneous   decision   taken   by   the   Nigam   for   no  JUDGMENT fault   of   theirs,   would   also   be   entitled   to   payment   of  salary for the remaining period up to the age of 60 years. 35. In  Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam  vs. Radhey Shyam Gautam,  2007   (11)   SCC   507,   following   the   decision   in   Harwindra  case this Court held that  the employees of  Kumar (supra)   ,   30 Page 30 the   Nigam   shall   be   entitled   for   full   salary   for   the  remaining period up to the age of 60 years.  36. However, in     U.P. Jal Nigam   vs. Jaswant Singh, 2006 

salary only to those employees of the Nigam who had filed  writ petitions and denied the same to others who have not  moved before a court of law.  37. In view of the orders passed by this Court in  Harwindra  Kumar(supra),   Radhey   Shyam   Gautam(supra)   and   Jaswant  Singh(supra),  it was not open to the High Court to rely on  some other decision of this Court,   ratio of which is not  applicable in the present case for determining back wages  of   respondents     restricting   it   to   be   20%     of   the   basic  salary. We observe that the principle of ‘no pay no work’  JUDGMENT is   not   applicable   to   the   employees   who   were   guided   by  specific rules like Leave Rules etc. relating to absence  from duty.   Such  principle  can be applied to only those  employees who were not guided by any specific rule relating  to absence from duty.   If an employee is prevented by the  employer from performing his duties,   the employee cannot  31 Page 31 be blamed for  having not worked, and the principle of  ‘no  pay no work’  shall not be applicable to such employee.   38. In these cases as we have already held that Regulation 

employees of the Nigam shall be 60 years; we are of the  view   that   following   consequential   and   pecuniary   benefits  should be allowed to different sets of employees who were  ordered to retire at the age of 58 years: (a) The employees including respondents who moved before a court of law irrespective of fact whether interim order was passed in their favour or not, shall be entitled for full salary up to the age of 60 years. The arrears of salary shall be paid to them after adjusting the amount if any paid. (b) The employees, who never moved before any court of law and had to retire JUDGMENT on attaining the age of superannuation, they shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, in view of Regulation 31 they will deem to have continued in service up to the age of 60 years. In their case, the appellants shall treat the age of superannuation at 60 years, fix the pay accordingly and re-fix the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc. On such calculation, they shall be entitled for arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid. 32 Page 32 (c) The arrears of salary and arrears of retirement benefits should be paid to such employees within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

th Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dated 29   July, 2010  and other impugned judgments stand modified to the extent  above.   The   appeals   are   disposed   of   with   aforesaid  observation and directions.  There shall be no order as to  costs.  ………..……………………………………………..J. (G.S. SINGHVI) ........……………………………………………………….J.                      (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, JULY 2,  2013. JUDGMENT 33 Page 33