The immediate effect would only mean from the date of the order so passed by the State Government i.e. 03.07.2012.
Ifekaruddin Managing Director Since the respondents have retired from service before the approval of the Resolution by the State Government, in our view, the High Court ought number to have passed the impugned order s and direction s .
Kindly take necessary urgent action as per above.
606 OF 2013 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C. NO.24459 OF 2012 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH ANR.
The Resolution of the Board requires to be approved by the State Government.
We, thus, dispose of the writ petition with directions in terms of companysensus with further direction that the retirement of petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the pending proposal before the State Government.
Since the appellant was to retire on 31.01.2012, the Court, after hearing the parties, had passed the order dated 30.01.2012.
The appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia questioning the intimation issued by the respondent about his date of retirement.
order and the sanction in regard to the same is given.
J. L. DATTU J. RANJAN GOGOI NEW DELHI JANUARY 21, 2013.
The first appellant is the Managing Director, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Corporation for short and the second appellant is In Charge Personnel of the Corporation.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Contempt Petition No.
In terms of the orders passed by the State Government, the Managing Director of the Corporation has also issued an Office Order dated 25.5.2012.
The operative portion of the order reads as under In view of the aforesaid statement of learned State Counsel, learned companynsel for petitioner has numberobjection to this writ petition being disposed of with direction to decide the matter within two months after Assembly Elections.
The Office Order reads as under Office Order As per Govt.
The State Government, by its order dated 03.07.2012, has approved the Resolution of the Board for increase of the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years with immediate effect and to amend the Rule 28 of the bye laws of Appellant U.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sansthan.
1778/2012, 1779/2012 and 1785/2012 of 2012 dated 24.07.2012.
They are aggrieved by certain directions issued by the High Court in the aforesaid Contempt Petition Nos.1778 of 2012, 1779 of 2012 and 1785 of 2012 dated 24.07.2012.
In the said order it was made clear that it will become operative from the prospective date.
The operative portion of the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Contempt Petition reads as under In view of the above, I direct the opposite party number1 i.e. Managing Director, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur to allow the petitioner to work as per the direction given in the companytempt petition No.1239 of 2012 on 10.07.2012 within a period of ten days, failing which, he will have to appear in person to show cause as to why the companytempt proceedings be number initiated against him.
A reading of the order would indicate that the retirement of the appellant shall be subject to the outcome of the pending proposal before the State Government.
Therefore, the said Resolution was forwarded to the State Government by the Board on 07.04.2010.
We have heard Shri Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Yatish Mohan, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent s .
order dated 20.09.2011 of Public Industry Department 1, the retirement age of Regular and Full Time employees working in UP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. is enhanced from 58 years to 60 years with immediate effect from 22.05.2012 I.e. the date of issuance of Govt.
The Board in its Resolution dated 30.03.2010, has proposed an amendment for increase of the age of the retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years.
Shri Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay appearing for the appellants would inform us that the Board had passed a resolution for increasing the age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years.
That is how the appellants have number yet implemented the orders passed by the High Court.
APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH RESPONDENT WITH A. NO.
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Contempt Nos.
The State Government had passed an order approving the resolution of the Board only on 22.05.2012.
This Court, while entertaining these appeals, had issued numberice to the respondents and further had stayed the order passed by the High Court in the Contempt Petitions.
We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent.
The said resolution requires to be approved by the State Government therefore, they had sent the resolution to the State Government for its approval.
607/2013 S.L.P. C NO.24461/2012 AND A. NO.
Order No.736/77 4 12 SIDC 33/12 dated 22.05.2012 issued under the signature of the Special Secretary, Industrial Development Department 4 and as per the arrangement given under Govt.
608/2013 S.L.P. C NO.25292/2012 O R D E R Leave granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Sd Mohd.
Since the appellant had retired on 31.01.2012, in our view, the order passed by the State Government approving the Resolution of the Board for increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 year companyld number be given to the respondent.
