STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus VIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus VIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.

The Court concluded that Preetam Singh's reasoning merits reconsideration because it did not advert to relevant provisions of the 1965 Act (notably ss.8, 92, 94(2)(nn), 95(1)(f) and s.95(2)) and to constitutional/legislative and executive powers (Entry 41 List II; Art.162) which support State jurisdiction to issue directions affecting conditions of service; accordingly the questions formulated were referred to a larger Bench.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P. & Ors.; Respondent: Virendra Kumar & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Papers Referred to a Larger Bench for Reconsideration
Outcome
Papers directed to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench to reconsider Preetam Singh and related questions; matter referred to a larger Bench.
Legal Topics
State Executive Power Under Article 162, Control Over Public Corporations (u.p. State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975), Whether Conditions of Service Constitute Functions of a Statutory Board, Pension, Family Pension and Gratuity Schemes, Rulemaking and Repugnancy Between State Rules and Board Regulations
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Statutory Interpretation Local Government Law State Executive Power Under Article 162 Control Over Public Corporations (u.p. State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975) Whether Conditions of Service Constitute Functions of a Statutory Board +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P. & Ors.

Appellant

Virendra Kumar & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Papers Referred to a Larger Bench for Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Preetam Singh (2014) that conditions of service of officers and employees do not constitute functions of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad lays down the correct law, particularly without reference to ss.8, 92 and 94(2)(nn) of the 1965 Act.
  2. 2 Whether functions of the Board are limited to those enumerated in s.15 of the 1965 Act or include functions referred to elsewhere in the Act, rules and regulations (including conditions of service under s.95(1)(f)).
  3. 3 Whether the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue directions regarding service conditions of officers and employees of the Board under the 1965 Act, the 1975 Act and other enabling powers of the State.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded that Preetam Singh's reasoning merits reconsideration because it did not advert to relevant provisions of the 1965 Act (notably ss.8, 92, 94(2)(nn), 95(1)(f) and s.95(2)) and to constitutional/legislative and executive powers (Entry 41 List II; Art.162) which support State jurisdiction to issue directions affecting conditions of service; accordingly the questions formulated were referred to a larger Bench.

Court Disposition

Papers directed to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench to reconsider Preetam Singh and related questions; matter referred to a larger Bench.

Orders

  • Let the papers of these cases be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.
  • Request to the Chief Justice to constitute the larger Bench at an early date given urgency concerning retired employees' entitlements.