LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 1023 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5527 of 2012) JULY 2, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Service Law: Superannuation - State framed Regulations, 2005 - Fixing two different ages of superannuation (58 and 60) - For 8 c the employees of one Department, solely on the basis of their source of entry in the service - Propriety and constitutional validity of - Held: The employees from the two sources were 0 treated alike for the purpose of superannuation under Regulation 31 of 1978 Regulations - Subsequently no discrimination can be made and differential treatment would not be permissible, solely on the basis of their source of entry - Thus, Regulations, 2005 is unconstitutional and ultra vires E Art. 14 of the Constitution - The employees who were ordered to retire at the age of 58 are entitled to pecuniary benefit - The employees who approached the Court, shall be entitled to full salary upto 60 years of age - The employees who did not approach the Court shall not be entitled to full salary upto 60 F years of age, but they would be deemed to have continued in service upto 60 years and their retiral benefits to be fixed accordingly - Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on the age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 - Regulation 4 - Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Services of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978 - G Regulation 3.1 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14. Principles - Principle of 'No work no pay' - Applicability - Held: The principle is not applicable to the employees guided 1023 H 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A by specific rules relating to absence from duty - It is also not applicable to the employee who was prevented by the employer from performing his duties. Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14 - Differential 8 treatment of similarly situated persons/groups - Permissibility - Held: Differential treatment would be permissible between two similarly situated persons/groups - But such treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia and that differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to C be achieved by the statute. Appellant-State constituted Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam under Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. The services of the employees of erstwhile Local Self Government Engineering Department (LSGED) were D transferred/merged with the Jal Nigam. The Jal Nigam, in exercise of the powers conferred under the 1975 Act, made Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978. The Regulation was made equally applicable to the employees E transferred/merged from LSGED and to the directly recruited employees of the Jal Nigam. Regulation 31 of the 1978 Regulations stipulated that the service conditions of the employees of the Nigam would be governed by the Rules/Regulations, generally applicable F to the employees of the State Government. Thus the retirement/superannuation age of the employees of the Nigam were to be governed by r. 56(a) of Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. The State by amending the Fundamental Rules, enhanced the age of superannuation G from 58 to 60 years. However, this amendment was not made applicable to the employees of the Nigam. The same was challenged. The order for retirement of the employees of the Nigam at the age of 58, was set aside by Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Nigam framed Uttar H Pradesh Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on the age of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DAYANAND 1025 CHAKRAWARTY Superannuation) Regulations, 2005. As per the 2005 A Regulations, the age of superannuation of the employees directly recruited with the Nigam would be 60 years, whereas of those transferred/merged from LSGED would be 58 years. The Regulation was held discriminatory and unconstitutional by the High Court. B In appeal to this Court, the questions for consideration were whether two different age of superannuation of 58 and 60 years can be prescribed for the employees similarly situated, including members of C the same service, solely on the basis of their source of entry in the service; and whether the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 fixing two different age of superannuation for similarly situated employees of Jal Nigam are discriminatory and ultra vires A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.