Allahabad High Court
Ram Sahay Pathak vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural ... on 25 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:60063
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 11388 of 2025
Ram Sahay Pathak
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ravindra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 30
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Notices for all the opposite parties have been accepted by the office of learned CSC.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:-
" To issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow to the petitioner all other admissible retirement benefit after adjusting the amount already paid in the light of judgement and order of the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court passed Writ-A No.50351 of 2013 ( Jag Mohan and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) Special Appeal (D) No.474 of 2018 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Prahlad Singh) and S.L.P. (Civil) No.33774 of 2018 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Babu Kushwaha) contain in Annexure No.3, 4 and 5 to this petition."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, which is a judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.474 of 2018 and other connected matters. The said order is being reproduced herein below:-
"Special Appeal Defective No. 474 of 2018 is barred by limitation from 408 days and Special Appeal Defective No. 447 of 2017 is also barred by limitation from 41 days. Ignoring the same, we have examined merits of the case.
These appeals are before us to examine correctness of the judgments dated 16.05.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 12521 of 2012 and 27.02.2017 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 50351 of 2013 (Jagmohan and another Versus State of U.P. and 3 others).
The only question under consideration is that whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh under its office order dated 10.10.2014 is justified in effecting its decision to raise the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years for the employees of District Rural Development Agency w.e.f. 30.09.2014 instead of the date applied for other employees working with State Government and its local bodies.
Learned Single Bench while considering this issue arrived at the conclusion that a recommendation was made on 25.11.2013 to raise the age of superannuation but that was not applied for good about 10 months and that is not justifiable. Learned Single Bench while declaring the cut of date fixed by Government of Uttar Pradesh also noticed that age of retirement was enhanced for the employees working in different establishments of the Government of Uttar Pradesh including its local bodies and corporation w.e.f. a date earlier than the date fixed for the employees of Rural Development Agency and, for that, no reasonable justification was given.
On going through the reasoning given by learned Single Bench, we do not find any force in the argument advanced that Government in its judicious discretion considered it appropriate to apply decision to raise age of retirement w.e.f. 30.09.2014.
True it is, Government is having a broad discretion to fix a cut of date to apply any of its administrative decision but such decision is always required to be reasonable, uniform and justifiable in eye of law. In the case in hand, learned Single Bench, in quite specific terms, noticed unreasonability and discrimination in fixing the cut of date to apply administrative decision of the Government for raising the age of superannuation for the persons similarly situated.
In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
Hence, the appeals are dismissed."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, which is an order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.33774 of 2018 whereby the special appeal of the State Government challenging the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been dismissed.
6. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue in question has been set at rest and claim of the petitioner may be considered in the light of the aforesaid judgment of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has no objection if the petitioner is extended the benefit of judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.474 of 2018.
Accordingly, this writ petition is finally disposed of directing the opposite parties to extend the benefit of judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.474 of 2018, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing the SLP of the State Government vide order dated 11.1.2019.
8. Compliance of the aforesaid order shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court.
(Manjive Shukla,J.) September 25, 2025 Shahnaz