Allahabad High Court
Dharmraj Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 6 March, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9739 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dharmraj Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Ayush Deptt. Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr Surendra Kumar Tripath
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Dr. Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.
This Court has passed the order dated 06.02.2019 as under:-
"On 23.05.2018, the following order was passed by this Court:
"In compliance of earlier order dated 17.05.2018, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the letter dated 18.05.2018 of the Controller U.P. Homeopathy Medicine Board, Lucknow, which has been sent to the Secretary, Anysh Department, Anubhag-2 for proposal that the employees of the board be also given the benefit of age of retirement. The letter dated 18.05.2018 is taken on record.
It has also been submitted that the matter is pending before the Finance Department, Government of U.P. and after getting approval from the Finance Department, the matter would be placed before the Cabinet and only thereafter the necessary decision may be taken.
Learned Additional Chief Standing has also submitted that minimum one month time may be consumed in passing the final order on account of the formalities indicated here-in-above.
Since the petitioner is going to retire on 30.06.2018, therefore, it is expected that the Competent Authority to take any suitable decision, strictly in accordance with law, by 25.06.2018 so that the petitioner could know the fate of his matter before his retirement.
However, if no decision is taken within the stipulated time and the petitioner retires from service, his retirement shall be subject to further order of this Court.
List this case on 03.07.2018 as fresh"
Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no decision has been taken in this regard and the order passed by this Court has not been complied with.
The respondent no. 1 shall file an affidavit indicating the reasons as to why the order passed by this Court on 23.05.2018 has not been complied with.
List this matter on 06.03.2019 in the top ten cases."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced a letter dated 05.03.2019 preferred by the Special Secretary, Department of Ayush, Government of U.P., Lucknow to the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel apprising that the Cabinet decision has been taken on 02.03.2019 for enhancement of age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years of the employees of Uttar Pradesh Homeopathic Medicine Board. It has further been indicated that since the Cabinet decision has been taken, therefore, the concerning rule shall be amended accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.14 of the writ petition, which is an order dated 08.06.2015 preferred by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. addressing to the Registrar, Ayurvedic & Unani, Tibbi Medical Board, U.P., Lucknow, whereby the age of retirement of the employees of Ayurvedic & Unani, Tibbi Medical Board has been extended by the Cabinet decision and it has been indicated in the said order that the rules to that effect would be amended.
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore has submitted that the order dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition) is identical with the order dated 02.03.2019 of the present issue whereby the Cabinet decision for enhancing the age of retirement has been taken. He has further submitted that in compliance of order dated 08.06.2015, the employees of Ayurvedic & Unani, Tibbi Medical Board have been permitted to serve till the age of 60 years. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the employees of Ayurvedic & Unani, Tibbi Medical Board have been permitted to continue their services till the age of 60 years only on the basis of Cabinet decision, the petitioner may also be permitted to discharge his services till the age of 60 years on the basis of Cabinet decision dated 02.03.2019. He has also submitted that the present writ petition was filed on 01.04.2018 before the date of retirement, as the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2018, therefore, the petitioner may also be extended the same benefit.
This Court vide order dated 23.05.2018 has observed that if the decision in the issue of the petitioner is not taken well in time, the retirement of the petitioner shall be subject to further orders of this Court.
Since the protection has already been granted in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the interim relief application of the petitioner may be considered in the wake of the fact that the Cabinet decision in the instant matter has already been taken.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to file the short counter affidavit/ counter affidavit bringing on record the copy of the Cabinet decision dated 02.03.2019. In the aforesaid short counter affidavit/ counter affidavit, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall come with the specific stand as to why the petitioner may not be extended the same benefit, which has been extended to the employees of Ayurvedic & Unani,Tibbi Medical Board only on the basis of Cabinet decision dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition).
List this petition on 13.03.2019 within top ten cases.
Order Date :- 6.3.2019
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
