Allahabad High Court
Dr Pushpendra Kumar vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 5 November, 2024
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172991
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9511 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dr Pushpendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Janmed Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girjesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2.Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to enhance the age of retirement of the petition up to 62 years in consonance with the notification dated 31.05.2017 and provide the equal benefits to the petitioner as per Allopath doctors.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on his post up to the age of 62 years by maintaining the status quo."
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that very same and identical controversy has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2021 (North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Others). It is next submitted that relying upon the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court vide order dated 27.01.2023 has allowed the Writ Petition No. 30915 of 2021 (Dr. Surendra Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) wherein the same grievance was raised. Against the order dated 27.01.2023, the State has preferred Special Appeal No. 446 of 2023 before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench vide order dated 11.07.2024 has directed the State to permit the petitioners to continue up to the age of 62 years with the condition that they will submit an undertaking before the authority concerned as also an affidavit in these appeals, where they are party to the effect that in the event the State succeeds they will refund the amount paid to them in compliance of the judgement of the Writ Court, which is sub-judice herein, but there is no order of stay. He next submitted that present petition may also be allowed on the same terms and conditions.
4.Learned Additional Chief standing counsel, being confronted by the Court, could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
5. I have perused the impugned orders dated 27.01.2023 and 11.07.2024.
6.In view of facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed in terms of judgment and order dated 27.01.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 30915 of 2021 (Dr. Surendra Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) as well as interim order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.446 of 2023 alongwith connected appeals.
Order Date :- 5.11.2024
AKT
