Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Hridaya Ram Yadav And (7) Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 6 September, 2010

Ram Babu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Others on 19 August, 2011

9.The question whether petitioner should continue after 58 years was also considered by a Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7687 (S/S) of 2009 (Hirdai Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 20.11.2009 whereby it has been held that the age of retirement prescribed under the Rules rule, i.e., 58 years in not invalid and this decision has been upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 851 of 2009 (Hridai Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others decided on 3.12.2009 at Lucknow. It is true that in the said case validity of the amended provision was involved. In this case, the construction of amended provision is involved. However, in my view, the amended Rule does not admit any ambiguity. It clearly prescribes age of superannuation as 58 years. For this purpose there is no question of application of subsequent clause relating to approval of State Government.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1