STATE OF U.P AND ANR. versus JOGENDRA SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 28-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
STATE OF U.P AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
JOGENDRA SINGH AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules-Rule 56(e) as amended 
by adding a proviso by UP. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment Act), 1976-
Applicability-Voluntary Retirement-Persons who retired at a time when 
proviso was not there-Whether can claim benefit of the proviso-Held, No- C 
Amending Act did not make the amendment retrospective. 
Respondent 1 while holding the post of Senior Prosecuting Officer, 
took voluntary retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 of Uttar Pradesh 
Fundamental Rules after completion of thirty one and a half years of service 
on 12-4-1976. He was granted retirement benefits including pension and D 
gratuity accordingly. In 1989 about 13 years after the amendment of Rule 
56 by the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment Act), 1976 
respondent 1 filed a writ petition claiming the benefit of the proviso to FR-
56(e), contending that although he had retired at a time when the proviso 
was not incorporated in the Fundamental Rules, he should be given the E 
benefit of the proviso and an additional service of one and a half years should 
be counted for the purposes of his pension and gratuity. Writ petition was 
allowed by the High Court, against which the present appeal had been filed 
by the St)lte. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : The first respondent was governed by the Uttar Pradesh 
Fundamental Rules. On the date when he took voluntary retirement and left 
servi,ce he was given retirement benefits on the basis of the Fundamental 
Rules and other provisions which were then in force. Fundamental Rule 56 
F 
has been subsequently amended by an amendment which came into force on G 
18th November, 1976 because the amendment inserting the proviso came on 
the statute book on that date. It will, therefore, be applicable to all those who 
take voluntary retirement after the proviso was inserted. All laws in this 
sense, are prospective unless they are made retrospective either expressly 
or by necessary implication. The Amending Act did not make the amendment H 
581 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A retrospective. Therefore, persons who retired at a time when the proviso was 
not on the statute book cannot claim the benefit of the proviso. The first 
respondent having retired prior to the insertion of the proviso in Fundamental 
Rule 56(e), cannot claim the benefit of the proviso. However, in the case of 
the respondent, the Court did not propose to interfere with the order granting 
B any benefit to him of the impugned order in view of the special facts of the 
case. (583-F-H; 584-B) 
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, 11983) 1SCC305, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2061 of 
c 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.90 of the Allahabad High Court 
in C.M.W.P.No.2816of1989. 
K.S. Chauhan, (K.P. Singh) for R.B. Mishra for the Appellant. 
D 
Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MRS. SUJA TA V. MANO HAR, J. At the material time, respondent no. I 
was holding the post of Senior Prosecuting Officer, Agra. The date of birth 
E of respondent no. I was 20.10.1919. In the ordinary course, he would have 
retired on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 20th of October, 
1977, The first respondent however took voluntary retirement after completion 
of thirty one and a half years of service on 12th ;if April, I 976. He has been 
granted retirement benefits including pension and gratuity accordingly. 
F 
Respondent no. I took voluntary retirement under the provisions Fundamental 
Rule 56 Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. Under Rule 56(c), "the Government 
servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any 
time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying 
service fo 20 years". By the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment 
Act), I 976, certain amendments were made to Rule 56, Under one such 
G amendment, sub-clause (e) of Rule 56, was amended by adding a proviso. 
Original Fundamental Rule 56(e) provided as follows: 
"56(e): A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, 
if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the 
provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who 
H 
retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule." 
( 
·-
STATE v.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.