MOTI LAL KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to quash the order dated 25.03.2011 issued by the Works Manager of the Irrigation Workshop Division, Naini, Allahabad, informing the petitioner that he would attain the age of superannuation on completing the age of 58 years. The facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that the Irrigation Workshop Division, Naini, Allahabad is an industrial establishment in the Irrigation Department of the State Government, which is under the control and supervision of the Works Manager of the Irrigation Workshop Division, Naini, Allahabad. The petitioner was working continuously in the said workshop as Moulder since 01.01.1987 as daily wager. On 15.03.1991 the Chief Engineer, Procurement and Material Management, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow sanctioned 93 posts in different trades, prescribing their pay scales, qualification and experience etc. Thereafter Selection Committee was constituted and the Superintending Engineer was made the competent authority. Applications were invited from daily wagers for their appointment in regular capacity. The Assistant Engineer by his order dated 30.10.1993 directed the daily wagers of the workshop to submit their applications as well as bio-data on the option form. On the basis of recommendations made by the Selection committee, services of 51 workers out of 54 were regularized, but the petitioner was left out. Aggrieved, petitioner filed writ petition before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 10.03.2006 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and grant all benefit as were granted to similarly situated persons. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the services of the petitioner were regularized. Petitioner claims that thereafter, he has been sought to be superannuated at the age of 58 years, whereas the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years in view of the amendments which have been made by the Governor in exercise of the authority vested under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, wherein age of superannuation of government servants in place of 58 years has been changed to 60 years. Petitioner submits that in this background, as he is also a government servant and necessary amendments having been incorporated under, wherein amendment has been introduced in Fundamental Rules contained in Financial Hand Book Volume II to Volume IV, which prescribes the age of 60 years, and in view of this amendment, the directives issued to superannuate him at the age of 58 years is bad.

(2.) To the said writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been sought to be contended that the petitioner has been functioning in the industrial establishment of the State Government and his service conditions are governed as per Model Standing Order published on 24.07.1992 framed in exercise of the authority vested under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and aforesaid Standing Order lays down statutorily imposed conditions of service, binding on both the employers and employee. In view of this, as the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are special law vis--vis general law, and in view of this, the petitioner has been rightly superannuated at the age of 58 years.

(3.) Rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Thereafter supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have also been filed, and hereafter as per the directives issued by Special Appeal Bench in Special Appeal No. 1100 of 2011, State of U.P. and others vs. Moti Lal Kushwaha, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.