TEJ BAHADUR RAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 07-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

:::t 
~-
TEJ BAHADUR RAM 
A 
V, 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 7. 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
labour laws: 
UP. State Electricity Board (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975- c 
Regulation 2-Retirement age-Extension of-Sought for individual 
employee-Permissibility-Held: There is no discretion to the management 
to extend the age of retirement of individual employee. 
Appellant-employee filed a Writ Petition seeking order to the 
respondent-management for extending the age of retirement so far as it related D 
rr 
to the appellant alone and a consequential relief to allow him to continue in 
serYice till the due date of superannuation age. High Court dismissed the Writ 
Petition. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that Regulation 2(a) of the 
E 
U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975 is 
hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since there F 
y 
is no discretion to the Management for extending the age of retirement of 
individual employee. Rule 2 of U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees' 
~ 
Retirement) Regulations, 1975 giYes discretion to the Management to retain 
the employee in service after the age of compulsory retirement with the 
preYious sanction of the Board in writing, but he must not be retained after 
the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. 1797-D-FI 
G 
Hindustan Antibiotics ltd. "· The Workmen of Kerala State Electricity 
Board, AIR 1967 SC 948, distinguished. 
-; 
-~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3976 of2006. 
H 
793 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
I 
~ 
t: 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51499 of2005. 
Dr. R.G. Padia and Purnima Bhat for the Appellant. 
Subhrajyoti Borthakur, Baijoyonta Barooah and Sunil Kumar Jain for the 
B Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
c 
Heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. 
Subhrajyoti Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondents. 
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 
~ 
26.7.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Civil Misc. 
D 
Writ Petition No. 51499 of 2005. The appellant filed the writ petition before 
the High Court with the following prayer: 
(i) 
a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the 
impugned order dated 13.8.2004 passed by respondent no.3 
(Annexure 4) so far it relates to the petitioner only; 
E 
(ii) 
a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding 
the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 
' 
31. 7 .2007 the due date of superannuation age; 
(iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court 
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
F 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the 
ground that there is no discretion to the Management for extending the age 
,,,. 
of retirement of individual employee, and therefore, the decision of the Supreme 
Court has no application. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment of 
.. 
G 
the Supreme Court in Hindustan Antibiotics ltd. v. The Workmen, reported 
in AIR (1967) SC 948. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed 
the writ petition since there is no discretion to the Management for extending 
the age of retirement of individual employee. 
Our attention was also drawn to Rule 2 of U.P. State Electricity Board 
H (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975, which deals with date of 
compulsory retirement and reads thus: 
\.. 
-:" 
796 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
I- < 
A 
is entitled to get benefit of Rules framed by the State for this employees 
hence entitled to be continue in service till the age of 60 years." 
Though the ground in regard to Section 23 of the U.P. Electricity Refonns Act, 
1999 had been raised, there is no indication from the order impugned that the 
said contention was argued before the High Court. The High Court was not 
B called upon to decide the issue which was not argued before it. We have 
already extracted the prayer made in the writ petition. The prayer is to quash 
order dated 13.8.2004 passed by respondent no.3 insofar as it relates to the 

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