RAM BRIKSHA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in the instant case being in the service of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti as Class 4 employee at Azamgarh, has instituted the present petition for the relief of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice of retirement dated 16.6.2003 and further for a relief of mandamus to issue a notification in terms of notification dated 27 -6 -2002 thereby extending the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in relation to employees working in the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P.

(2.) IT has not been repudiated that the petitioner a Class 4 employee in the Krishi Mandi Samiti Azamgarh is governed by statutory regulations known as U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Centralised) Service Regulations, 1984 from a perusal of which it transpires that the age of retirement envisaged in the regulations is 58 years. It also brooks no dispute that the aforestated Regulation has not undergone any amendment unto this date. The learned Counsel has founded his submission on Notification No. G -2 -605/X -5341 dated 27 -6 -2002 (Annexure 1 to the petition) which purports to have been issued by the State of U.P. thereby amending the Fundamental Rules as a consequence of which the age of retirement has come to be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years and canvassed that the petitioner nurtured a legitimate expectation that being a public servant, he will also be able to continue in the service of Mandi Samiti and will be superannuated upon attaining the age of 60 years. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents counteracted the submissions stating that the separate Rules and Regulations have been framed for application to the employees of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and thus their service conditions are governed by U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Centralised) Service Regulations, 1984 and Regulation 46 (1) and as such, the provisions of amended Fundamental Rules cannot be imported for application to the employees of Mandi Samiti. The learned Counsel further canvassed that there is no question of legitimate expectation operating in this regard inasmuch as proceeds the submission, there was no legitimate basis for nursing such legitimate expectation.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned Counsel that the petitioner owing to amendment in the Fundamental Rules, had a legitimate expectation that he would continue in the service of the Mandi Samiti upto the age of 60 years. In connection with this proposition, it is necessary that whether the petitioner was justified in nurturing legitimate expectation as consequence of amendment in the Fundamental Rules. The sine qua non for legitimate expectation is that it must be legitimate and there should be legitimate hope and desire of a person to obtain a favourable order. In R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex -parte Ruddock, 1987 (2) All. ER 518, Taylor, J. held as under: