VISHWANATH EAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Anant Vijai and Sri Q.S. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the respondent - Jal Nigam and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE undisputed facts which lie in a very narrow compass are that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation according to the existing Rules of 58 years on 31.5.2008. The present writ petition was admittedly moved before this Court after the said date on 30.6.2005. An interim order was provided on 5.7.2005, whereby the petitioner was permitted to continue to work and draw salary. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jal Nigam and in para 9 thereof it has been categorically stated that the provision for enhancement of age of retirement was amended and incorporated in the Statute on 30.8.2005. The decision in the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Ors., decided on 10.11.2006 by the Apex Court categorically provides as follows:.Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the Court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for the retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others. We have been given a chart of those nine persons, who filed writ petitions and obtained stay and are continuing in service. They are as follows:

(3.) IN view of this, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for continuance in service.