Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 605      OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) NO.24200 OF 2012)  

RAJIV KAPOOR & ANR.   APPELLANTS

VERSUS

KARAN PAL SINGH                        RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in  

Contempt Petition No. 1239 of 2012 dated 10.07.2012.   

3. The order passed by the High Court reads as under:

“After hearing both the parties, I agree with  the submissions made by Sri J.N. Mathur, learned  Senior  Advocate  that  the  said  order  is  prospective in nature. But fact remains that the  judicial order is in favour of the petitioner  i.e. the retirement will be subject to outcome  of  the  pending  proposal  before  the  State  Government. When, it is so, then the petitioner  is entitled to get the benefit of the Government  Order dated 03.07.2012 by virtue of the order  dated 30.01.2012, passed by this Court, in Writ  Petition No.50(S/B) of 2012.  Now the opposite  parties have no option except to implement the  order  dated  30.01.2012,  passed  by  the  writ  court.   In  view  of  above,  the  petitioner  is  directed to join his duties within a period of  one  week  and  the  opposite  party  no.2,  i.e.  Director, U.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha,

Page 2

2

Rajkiya Udyan Parisar, Kariyappa Marg, Alambagh,  Lucknow shall allow him to resume his duties and  the services of the petitioner will be counted  for all purposes.  The period of absence of the  petitioner shall be treated as per Leave Rules  of  the  Government  applicable  in  the  Organization. With the above observations, the  contempt  petition  is  disposed  of.  Notice  for  personal appearance is discharged.”

4. Aggrieved  by  the  direction  so  issued  by  the  High  

Court, as we have already noticed, the appellants are before  

us.

5. This  Court,  while  entertaining  this  appeal,  had  

issued notice to the respondent and further had stayed the  

order passed by the High Court in the Contempt Petition.  That  

is  how  the  appellants  have  not  yet  implemented  the  orders  

passed by the High Court.

6. We  have  heard  Shri  P.S.  Patwalia,  learned  senior  

counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Dinesh Dwivedi,  

learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition,  

inter alia questioning the intimation issued by the respondent  

about  his date  of retirement.   Since  the appellant  was to  

retire on 31.01.2012, the Court, after hearing the parties, had  

passed the order dated 30.01.2012.  The operative portion of

Page 3

3

the order reads as under:

“In  view  of  the  aforesaid  statement  of  learned  State  Counsel,  learned  counsel  for  petitioner  has  no  objection  to  this  writ  petition being disposed of with direction to  decide  the  matter  within  two  months  after  Assembly Elections.  We, thus, dispose of the  writ  petition  with  directions  in  terms  of  consensus  with  further  direction  that  the  retirement of petitioner shall be subject to  the outcome of the pending proposal before the  State Government.”

8. A  reading  of  the  order  would  indicate  that  the  

retirement of the appellant shall be subject to the outcome of  

the pending proposal before the State Government.

9. At  this  stage,  it  is  relevant  to  refer  to  the  

proposed amendment to the bye-laws of the Board/Corporation.  

The Board in its Resolution dated 30.03.2010, has proposed an  

amendment for increase of the age of the retirement of its  

employees from 58 to 60 years.  The Resolution of the Board  

requires to be approved by the State Government.  Therefore,  

the said Resolution was forwarded to the State Government by  

the Board on 07.04.2010.

10. The State Government, by its order dated 03.07.2012,  

has approved the Resolution of the Board for increase of the  

age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60

Page 4

4

years with immediate effect and to amend the Rule 28 of the  

bye-laws of Appellant - U.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sansthan.  

The ‘immediate effect’ would only mean from the date of the  

order so passed by the State Government i.e. 03.07.2012.

11. Since the appellant had retired on 31.01.2012, in our  

view, the order passed by the State Government approving the  

Resolution  of  the  Board  for  increasing  the  age  of  

superannuation from 58 years to 60 year could not be given to  

the respondent.

12. However, the High Court has directed the appellants  

to permit the respondent to rejoin his duty and to continue  

till  he  attains  the  age  of  60  years.  In  our  view,  this  

direction given by the High Court is inappropriate in view of  

what has been observed by us earlier.  Accordingly, we allow  

this appeal and set aside the direction issued by the High  

Court.  However, we permit the respondent, if he so desires, to  

question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by  

the  State  Government  in  S.No.2069/12-2-2012-80,  dated  

03.07.2012 within 15 days' time from today. If such a petition  

is filed by the respondent within the time granted before the  

High  Court,  we  request  the  High  Court  to  dispose  of  the  

petition  on  merits  without  reference  to  the  period  of  

limitation.  

Page 5

5

13. All the other contentions raised by both the parties  

are left open.  

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 21, 2013.

Page 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 606       OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.) NO.24459 OF 2012)  

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH & ANR. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

RAJENDRA SINGH                      RESPONDENT

WITH  C.A. NO. 607/2013 @ S.L.P.(C) NO.24461/2012

AND  C.A. NO. 608/2013 @ S.L.P.(C) NO.25292/2012

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and  

order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in  

Contempt Nos. 1778/2012, 1779/2012 and 1785/2012 of 2012 dated  

24.07.2012.   

3. The first appellant is the Managing Director, U.P. State  

Industrial Development Corporation (`Corporation’ for short) and  

the  second  appellant  is  In-Charge  (Personnel)  of  the  

Corporation. They are aggrieved by certain directions issued by  

the High Court in the aforesaid Contempt Petition Nos.1778 of  

6

Page 7

2012,  1779 of  2012 and  1785 of  2012 dated  24.07.2012.  The  

operative portion of the order passed by the High Court in the  

aforesaid Contempt Petition reads as under :

“In view of the above, I direct the opposite  party  no.1  i.e.  Managing  Director,  U.P.  State  Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur  to  allow  the  petitioner  to  work  as  per  the  direction given in the contempt petition No.1239 of  2012 on 10.07.2012 within a period of ten days,  failing which, he will have to appear in person to  show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be  not initiated against him.”

4. This  Court,  while  entertaining  these  appeals,  had  

issued  notice  to  the  respondents  and  further  had  stayed  the  

order passed by the High Court in the Contempt Petitions.   

5. We  have  heard  Shri  Rakesh  Uttamchandra  Upadhyay,  

learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Yatish  

Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s).

6. Shri  Rakesh  Uttamchandra  Upadhyay  appearing  for  the  

appellants  would  inform  us  that  the  Board  had  passed  a  

resolution for increasing the age of its employees from 58 years  

to 60 years.  The said resolution requires to be approved by the  

State Government; therefore, they had sent the resolution to the  

State  Government  for  its  approval.  The  State  Government  had  

7

Page 8

passed an order approving the resolution of the Board only on  

22.05.2012. In the said order it was made clear that it will  

become  operative  from  the  prospective  date.  In  terms  of  the  

orders passed by the State Government, the Managing Director of  

the Corporation has also issued an Office Order dated 25.5.2012.  

The Office Order reads as under :

“Office Order

As per Govt. Order No.736/77-4-12-SIDC-33/12 dated  22.05.2012 issued under the signature of the Special  Secretary, Industrial Development Department-4 and as  per  the  arrangement  given  under  Govt.  order  dated  20.09.2011  of  Public  Industry  Department-1,  the  retirement  age  of  Regular  and  Full  Time  employees  working in UP State Industrial Development Corporation  Ltd.  is  enhanced  from  58  years  to  60  years  with  immediate  effect  (from  22.05.2012  I.e.  the  date  of  issuance of Govt. order) and the sanction in regard to  the same is given.

Kindly take necessary urgent action as per above.      Sd/-

(Mohd.Ifekaruddin) Managing Director”

7. Since the respondents have retired from service before  

the approval of the Resolution by the State Government, in our  

view,  the  High  Court  ought  not  to  have  passed  the  impugned  

order(s) and direction(s). In that view of the matter, we allow  

these  appeals and set aside the directions issued by the High  

Court.

8

Page 9

8. However, we permit the respondents-herein to question  

the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State  

Government, if they so desire, within 15 days' time from today.  

If such petitions are filed by the respondents before the High  

Court within the time granted, we request the High Court to  

dispose  of  the  petitions  on  merits  without  reference  to  the  

period of limitation.

9. All the other contentions raised by both the parties  

is left open.  

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 21, 2013.

9

Page 10

ITEM NO.67           COURT NO.7             SECTION XI

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24200/2012 (From the judgment and order dated 10.07.2012 OF THE HIGH COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  ALLAHABAD,  LUCKNOW  BENCH  IN  CONTEMPT  PETN.NO.1239 OF 2012)   RAJIV KAPOOR & ANR.                              Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

KARAN PAL SINGH                                   Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report )

WITH SLP(C) NO. 24459 of 2012 SLP(C) NO. 24461 of 2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl.documents on record  and with prayer for interim relief and office report)

SLP(C) NO. 25292 of 2012 (With appln.(s) for permission to place addl.documents on record  and office report)

Date: 21/01/2013  These Petitions were called on for hearing  today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI

For Petitioner(s)  Mr.P.S.Patwalia, Sr.Adv.                      Mr. M.R. Shamshad,Adv.

Mr.Shashank, Adv.  Mr.Ajay Singh, Adv.

                    Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay

For Respondent(s)  Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr.Adv.  Ms.Preetika Dwivedi, Adv.

                    For Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv.

1 0

Page 11

Mr.Yatish Mohan, Adv.  For Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar   

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

SLP(C)No.24459/2012, SLP(C)No.24461/2012 & SLP(C)No.25292/2012:

Leave granted.

Appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order.

SLP(C)No.24200/2012:

Leave granted.

Appeal allowed, in terms of the signed order.

(G.V.Ramana)         (Vinod Kulvi)      Court Master         Court Master

(Two separate signed orders are placed on the file)

1 1