CHAIRMAN, U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR. versus RADHEY SHYAM GAUTAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 30-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~~ 
CHAIRMAN, U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
RADHEY SHY AM GAUTAM AND ANR. 
MARCH 30, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDR.V.RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: Retirement age-Employees of U. P. Jal Nigam-Service 
conditions-Held, would be same as applicable to State Government Services 
under rules, regulations or orders applicable to such government servants- c 
Age of retirement/superannuation of government servants increased by State 
Govt. from 58 to 60 years by amending R.56(a) of Fundamental Rules-
Hence, same would equally apply to employees of Nigam-Administrative 
Law-Administrative decision-Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage, 
Act, 1975-s.37-Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) 
Service Regulations, 1978. 
D 
Respondent-Writ Petitioner filed writ petition before High Court 
.. 
seeking permission to continue in service ofappellant no. 1-Jal Nigam till 
attaining the age of 60 years. The appellant contested the writ petition on the_ 
ground that the standard age of retirement of its employees is 58 years. High 
Court allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The bare reading s.37 ofUttar Pradesh Water Supply and 
Sewerage Act, 1975 and Regulation 31 of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Engineers 
(Public Health Branch) Service Regulations, 1978, makes it clear that the . F 
i> 
service conditions of the employees of the Nigam would be the same as are 
applicable to the employees of the State Government under the rules, 
regulations and orders applicable to such government servants so long as 
the same are not altered by the Nigam in accordance with the provisions of 
the Act If the regulations have not been framed, the Nigam had residuary G 
power under s.lS(l) of the Act whereby under general power it could change 
the service conditions and the same could remain operative so long as 
· regulations were not framed. [Para 8) [588-E-G) 
... 
1.2. In the present case, regulations were already framed in the year 
583 
H 
·A 
B 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
1978 specifically providing in Regulation 31 that the conditions of service of 
the employees of the Nigam shall be governed by the rules, regulations and 
orders governing the conditions of service of government servants which 
would not only mean then in existence but any amendment made therein as 
neither in s.37 nor in Regulation 31, it has been mentioned that the Rules 
then in existence shall only apply. After the amendment made in Rule 56(a) 
of the Fundamental Rules by the State Government and thereby enhancing 
the age of superannuation of government servants from 58 years to 60 years, 
the same would equally apply to the employees of the Nigam and in case the 
State Government as well as the Nigam intended that the same would not be 
applicable, the only option with it was to make suitable amendment in 
C Regulation 31 of the Regulations after taking previous approval of the State 
Government By simply issuing direction by the State Government purporting 
to act under s.89 of tbe Act and thereupon taking administrative decision by 
the Nigam under s.15 of the Act in relation to the age of the employees would 
not tantamount to amending Regulation 31 of the Regulations. 
D 
[Para 8) [588-G-H; 589-A-B] 
Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Enginee1 Karmik, UP Jal, ljigam, Lakhnow 
and Ors., [2002) 2 UPLBEC 1511; Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer 
Karmik & Ors., [2005] 13 SCC 300 and Chairman, UP. Jal Nigam & 1nr. v. 
Jaswant Singh & Anr., JT (2006) 10 SC ~00, referred to . 
. E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1701 of2007. 
F 
G 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 559 of 2005. 
S. Was~ A. Qadri, Raj iv Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the Appellants. 
Rachna Gupta and Dr. Indra Pratap .Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of .the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
, 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Allahabad High Court questioning· correctness of the order 
passed by a: Division Bench in the Special Appeal filed by the appellant 
against an interim order. passed by a learned Single Judge peilllitting the 
respondent No. I to continue in service of the appellant No. I till attaining the 
H age of 60 years. The case of the appellant before both learned Single Judge 
CHAIRMAN,U.P.JALNIGAMv.RADHEYSHYAMGAUT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.