WAHAJUDDIN KHAN Vs. U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition Shri S. P. Mehrotra has accepted notice for respondents. As only a short question of law is involved in this f)efition and there is no controversy with regard to the facts of the case, earned counsel for parties have agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage.

(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order - dated 28-12-93 passed by General Manager of Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration (hereinafter referred to as KESA), approving retirement of 38 employees on various dates on account of their attaining the age of superannuation. This list includes name of petitioner also at Serial no. 4 and 31-1-1994 is mentioned as the date on which he shall retire from service from the post of Technical Staff Grade I.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for parties. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in view of the irrevocable conditions mentioned in para. 2 of the Notification dated 1-7-1971, the petitioner was absorbed in service of the Board under the same terms and conditions which were applicable while he was serving as government servant in KESA and the terms and conditions of the service cannot be changed which may be disadvantageous to him. As there was no date of retirement now under the aforesaid Regulation, petitioner cannot be retired at the age of 58 years about which there is no doubt that it prescribes a condition which is disadvantageous as it reduces the tenure of service. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the various letters in this regard as already mentioned above and has submitted that the respondents are estopped and they cannot be allowed to change the assurance which was given to the petitioner and other employees by various letters. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner in cases of S. P. Dubey v. M.P.S.R.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 276, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. S. S. Srivastava, AIR 1987 SC 1527, B. S. Yadav v. General Manager, Central Bank of India, AIR 1987 SC 1706. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that judgments of this Court and Honourable Supreme Court dealing with identical controversy cannot be used against the petitioner under the doctrine of sub- silention. Reliance has been placed in case of Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38.