Dismissed

Baladin Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2018WRIA/7335/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order extending the service of respondent-6 as Secretary, noting that the petitioner had attained the retirement age of 60 years and thus lacked locus standi to question the extension granted to another officer in the same cadre.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it has no merit due to lack of locus standi.

Baladin Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7335 of 2018 Petitioner :- Baladin Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Das Yadav,Ram Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujit Kumar Rai

¶2

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ram Das Yadav for the petitioner and Sri Sujit Kumar Rai for the respondents.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed against the order of Secretary dated 20.1.2018, by which Sri Ram Kirpal Vishwakarma (respondent-6) has been given charge of the post of Secretary, in addition to his own charge of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd.,Gyudhi.

¶5

It is admitted to the petitioner that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2018. Under Rule 29 of U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976, the age of retirement of a Member of Centralized Service was 58 years. By amendment w.e.f. 24.4.2015, the age of retirement was extended to 60 years. The petitioner has completed the age of 60 years.

¶6

By notification dated 30.6.2004, Cadre of the post of Secretary has been declared as a Dying Cadre. However, this notification has also been superseded by the notification dated 24.4.2015, as such, the post of Secretary is a post of Centralized Service today. Under Rule 13 of U.P. Primary Agricultural CoOperative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976, the Appointing Authority of the post of Secretary is District Administrative Committee. Thus, the Society has no jurisdiction to extend the service of the petitioner, as the petitioner is admittedly holding the post of Secretary in the Society. Claim of the petitioner is based upon the resolution of the Society dated 31.1.2018, by which he was given 2 years extension.

¶7

Counsel for the respondent also pointed out that a Circular has been issued by the Registrar dated 30.8.2012, in which direction has been issued not to give any extension after the age of 60 years. Thus, the petitioner at present, has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by Member Secretary of District Administrative Committee.

¶8

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed .

¶9

Order Date :- 13.3.2018/Jaideep/-

Baladin Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baladin Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Nazim Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Uttar Pradesh Bijli Karmachari Sangh, Cycle Market, Lal Imli Road, Kanpur Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Indresh Kumar Mishra Vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 4 Others

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Badam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravindra Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others