RAJIV KAPOOR Vs KARAN PAL SINGH
Bench: H.L. DATTU,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-000605-000605 / 2013
Diary number: 25361 / 2012
Advocates: M. R. SHAMSHAD Vs
GARVESH KABRA
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