Krishna Chandra Pandey vs U.P. State Electricity Board and Another

A. Chakrabarti, J.—Claiming a right to continue to work till the Petitioner is physically fit and a direction upon the Respondents not to retire the Petitioner, the present writ petition was filed.

The case made out in the writ petition is that the Petitioner was employed in Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration (hereinafter referred to as the ''KESA'') up to 15.09.1947 the erstwhile Caw pore Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. was owned and managed by Bugg Sutherland and Co. Ltd. and after termination of their licence the State Government had taken over the said company with effect from 16.9.1947 and re-named the same as Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration. There was a notification dated 2.4.1954 to the effect that the provisions of the Civil Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules do not apply to the employees of KESA and their conditions of service were to be governed by the Standing Orders framed Under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Incidentally the said Standing Orders had no provision regarding the age of retirement. The Petitioner, appointed In KESA with effect from 7.1.1957, was governed by the said certified Standing Orders. Accordingly, the Petitioner claims the subsequent regulation providing for retirement age as not applicable in case of the Petitioner.

The Respondents filed counter affidavit as also a short-counter affidavit.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The parties agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

The only consideration in deciding the present writ petition is as to whether the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is liable to retire by reason of application of the regulations which have come into force after the Petitioner''s appointment.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that such regulations having brought into effect subsequent to Petitioner''s Appointment cannot be made applicable In the case of the Petitioner to the extent the terms and conditions of service provided in the regulations are much less beneficial to the terms and conditions already applicable for the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to various case-laws including the cases of S.P. Dubey v. M.P.S.R.T. Corn. and Anr. AIR 1991 SC 270; Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr. v. The Labour Court U.P., Kanpur and Anr. AIR 1984 SC 1950 ; State of U.P. and Another Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Another, ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, and Wahajuddin Khan v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr (1994) 2 UPLBEC 732.

Admittedly, the similar question which has been raised in the present writ petition was decided in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr, v. Hari Shanker Jain and Others AIR 1979 SC 65. Considering the rules and regulations and relevant notifications issued from time to time in respect of the employees of U.P. State Electricity Board, the Apex Court came to conclusion that similar retirement of the employees, writ Petitioners therein, were rightly directed by the authorities. Similar question also came for consideration In the case of Wahajuddin Khan v. U.P. Electricity Board which was also decided on 2.2.1994 by Hon''ble R.R.K. Trivedi, J., Following the law laid down already as aforesaid and the said judgment was also approved by the Division Bench on 22.4.1994 in Special Appeal No. Nil of 1994.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in spite of the judgment of this Court as also the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner''s claim in the writ petition is still maintainable in view of the observations made in the case of S.P. Dubey (supra) and other cases referred to by him.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the law has since been settled in various cases already referred to and as such, there is no question of reconsideration of the said law in the present writ petition.

Upon considering the respective contentions of the parties and upon perusing the law laid down in various cases referred to hear in I am of the view that the law which is to be applicable In the case of the Petitioner has already been decided in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shanker (supra) and the same has been duly followed in other cases already referred to. In the circumstances, I do not find that the observations made in cases relating to employees of other organisations have any force justifying interference in the present writ petition. It may be noticed that the said various other cases involved facts which are different from the present one. On the other hand, the Petitioner''s case, both on facts and in law, is fully covered by the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shanker and similar other cases referred to hereinabove.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.