CHAIRMAN, U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR. versus JASWANT SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAIRMAN, U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR. 
v. 
JASW ANT SINGH AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER I 0, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ Petitions by employees 
challenging their age of superannuation at 58 years on the ground that the 
age of superannuation of the State Government employees is 60 years-Supreme 
C Court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors., [2005) 13 SCC 
300 held the superannuation age to be 60 years-Writ Petitions by employees, 
who retired long time back and accepted post-retirement benefits, claiming 
payment of salary for the two years in the light of the Supreme Court judgment-
High Court allowed the Writ Petitions -Correctness of-Held, employees are 
D not entitled to any relief because of delay and !aches. 
Some of the employees of appellant-organisation, who retired on 
attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years, filed Writ Petitions before 
High Court challenging the retirement age on the ground that the 
retirement age of State Government employees was 60 years and hence 
E they should also be allowed to continue to work upto the age of 60 years. 
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. This Court, in a batch of 
cases, in Harwindra Kumar. v. Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors. [2005) 13 SCC 
300 held that the employees are entitled to continue to work upto the age 
. of 60 years. This Court further held that in case of those employees who 
F have not been allowed to continue to work by the appellant after 
completing the age of 58 years, they would be entitled to payment of salary 
for the remaining period upto the age of 60 years. On the basis of this 
Court's judgment in Harwindra Kumar, a number of writ petitions were 
filed by the respondents, who had retired long back and accepted the post-
retirement benefits without challenging the retirement age earlier. The 
G High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions in the light of the judgment in 
Harwindra Kumar. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-organisation contended that 
the respondents are guilty of delay and laches and hence they should not 
916 
... 
CHAIRMAN, U.P. JAL NIGAM v. JASWANT SINGH 
917 
be granted any relief; that, if the celief is granted at this belated stage, it A 
will cause a huge financial burden; that there is no sufficient fund for 
incurring the huge ·financial burden and it will completely ruin the 
financial condition of the organisation; and that the relief should be 
confined to those persons who were continuing in service and filed lheir 
writ petitions in time. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The respondents are guilty since they have acquiesced 
in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they 
were vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in C 
the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants did not rise 
to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, Court 
should be very slow in granting the relfof to the incumbent. (923-D-EJ 
~ Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors., (20051 13 SCC 
300; Mis Rup Diamond & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (198912SCC356; D 
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 267; 
Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 538; Union of 
India & Ors. v. CK. Dharagupta & Ors., (199713 SCC 395; Government of 
W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 347 and Dayal Singh & Ors. v. 
Union of India & Ors., [2003) 2 SCC 593, referred to. 
1.2. If the respondents had challenged their retirement in time, 
perhaps the appellant would .have taken appropriate steps to raise funds 
to meet the liability. [923-F) 
In case, at this belated stage, if similar relief is given to the 
respondents, that will unnecessarily overburden the appellant-organisation 
and the organisation will completely collapse with the liability of payment 
E 
F 
to these persons in terms of two years' salary and increased benefit of 
pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, this Court is not 
inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the Court 
after their retirement age. Only those persons who have filed the writ G 
petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order 
for their retirement should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others. 
[924-F-HJ 
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. (1990) 4 SCC 207 
referred to. 
H 
918 
SUPRRME COU
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.