In a matter where the petitioners sought retirement at age 60 against a notice for age 58, the Court dismissed the writ petition stating it had lost its efficacy due to the lapse of time.
Petition dismissed as having lost efficacy due to efflux of time.
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. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2000156 of 2006
Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Dwivedi And Another Respondent :- U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.Through Managing Director And Anor
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi,Sandeep Dixit
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed against notice of retirement dated 22.1.2005 whereby the petitioners were ordered to be retired on their attaining the age of 58 years. The claim put forth in the writ petition was that petitioners should be retired at the age of 60 years.
By efÒux of time the writ petition appears to have lost its efÏcacy. It is hereby dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 28.9.2022 RS
Digitally signed by RAKESH SINGH Date: 2022.09.29 09:51:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a senior citizen petitioner can claim retirement age of 60 years in a writ petition.
Shiv Nath Dwivedi And Another
U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.Through Managing Director And Anor
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
