9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extension in age retrospectively when the Resolution was received by it more than three years back. Definitely clause 1(2) of the Government Order dated 30.9.2012 appears to be absolutely arbitrary inasmuch as it has prospectively applied the order dated 30.9.2012 by which it had allowed the Noida Authorities to extend the age of retirement. There are no reason why the clause 1(2) of the Government Order dated 30.9.2012 should be retained. Clause 1(2) of the Government Order dated 30.9.2012 is struck down and the Government Order dated 30.9.2012 shall apply retrospectively i.e. from the date the Resolution dated 29.6.2002 was passed. The petitioners shall be deemed to have worked with the Noida Authorities till the age of 60 years. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the employees of U.P. Raj Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. was enhanced to 60 years of age and (iv) The Lucknow Prani Udyan:- By the order dated 6.7.2007 the State Government had enhanced the retirement age to 60 years of its employees of the Lucknow Prani Udyan. Learned counsel has stated that initially the question of enhancement of retirement age was considered by a Board meeting of the Noida Authorities on 29.6.2002, immediately after the State Government had amended the Fundamental Rule 56(a) on 27.6.2002. Thereafter, on 22.3.2005, by way of a reminder the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Noida Authorities had again written to the State Government that they had, by their earlier resolution, enhanced the retirement age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .7.2012 and the consequential commuication dated 17.7.2012, requested the State Government to enhance the retirement age and also clarified that the financial burden would be borne by the Authority itself. However, when nothing was done by the State Government, the petitioners approached this Court by means of this writ petition and this Court on 31.8.2012 passed the following order: Claim in this petition is for enhancement of the age from 58 years to 60 years. Sri Navin Sinha, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav states that Noida authority has resolved for the needful. This happened in the past also. This Court in writ petition no. 48162 of 2010 decided on 17.1.2012 by making various observations in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing clause- 1(2) of the Government Order dated 30.9.2012 made the following submissions: (I) When the Noida Authorities since 2002 after the State Government had raised the retirement age from 58 to 60 had also raised the age of retirement of its employees then the State Government had no business to delay the formal approval which had to come from it. (II) When the Noida Authorities since 2002 (and specifically in the year 2006) had been writing that if the retirement age was increased then the financial burden would be borne by the Noida Authorities, then the State Government should have issued orders immediately. (III) In fact, the relationship of an employee and employer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the delay, thus, the State could not be blamed. The Noida Authorities however supported the case of the petitioners and disapporoved the clause 1(2) of the Government Order dated 30.9.2012 by which the increase in the age of retirement was done with effect from 30.9.2012 prospectively. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the Government Order dated 30.9.2012 was arbitrary inasmuch as it increased the age of retirement from 58 to 60 with effect from 30.9.2012 and did not increase the age of retirement for such employees who had retired before 30.9.2012. In the first place, the Government should have acted instantly when the resolutions were rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
