The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking direction to increase superannuation age to 62 years. The court found the petitioner failed to show he exercised an option to continue service and distinguished a cited judgment where such representation was annexed.
None. The direction to increase superannuation age was denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19322 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dr. Yogendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to increase the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and allow him to continue in service till the age of 62 years.
According to the petitioner, the Government has issued an order on 29 June 2017 providing that Medical Officers who are retiring at the age of 60 years will have to opt to continue in service till the age of 62 years. The second clause of the said Government Order is that if there is any departmental proceeding or serious complaint against such Medical Officer or his work is not satisfactory or his integrity is doubtful or he is not otherwise physically fit, he will be retired at 60 years.
There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has given any option nor is there any averment to this effect either. On the other hand, the petitioner is referring to an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14 June 2017 in Writ-A No.27005 of 2017 (Dr. Anil Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) but a perusal of that order shows that there is a specific finding recorded by the High Court that the petitioners therein had in fact represented to the State Government and that representation was annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot claim any parity with the order of the High Court in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Jain (supra).
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 SK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim parity with a Division Bench order in Writ-A No.27005 of 2017 to continue service till 62 years despite lack of filed representation.
Whether the Government order conditioning extension of service requires an explicit option from the retiree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Anil Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.Distinguished¶8
Writ-A No.27005 of 2017 (Dr. Anil Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.)
Dr. Yogendra Singh
State Of U P
2 Others
B. Amit Sthalekar
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
