STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY & ORS.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY & ORS.

It is impermissible to prescribe different ages of superannuation for similarly situated employees solely based on their source of entry, as such discrimination lacks intelligible differentia and rational relation to the statute's objective, violating Article 14; Regulations, 2005 are unconstitutional and Regulation 31 of 1978 continues to govern retirement age as 60 years.

Parties
Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondents: Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals disposed; High Court judgment largely affirmed; minor modifications ordered.
Legal Topics
Superannuation, Differential Treatment, Intelligible Differentia, Article 14, Retirement Age, Regulations Validity
Service Law Constitutional Law Superannuation Differential Treatment Intelligible Differentia Article 14 Retirement Age Regulations Validity

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Uttar Pradesh

Appellant

Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two different ages of superannuation (58 and 60) can be prescribed for similarly situated employees based solely on their source of entry
  2. 2 Whether Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Regulations, 2005 fixing two retirement ages for similar employees are discriminatory and ultra vires Article 14

Ratio Decidendi

It is impermissible to prescribe different ages of superannuation for similarly situated employees solely based on their source of entry, as such discrimination lacks intelligible differentia and rational relation to the statute's objective, violating Article 14; Regulations, 2005 are unconstitutional and Regulation 31 of 1978 continues to govern retirement age as 60 years.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed; High Court judgment largely affirmed; minor modifications ordered.

Orders

  • Regulations, 2005 declared unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14.
  • Employees who approached the Court, irrespective of interim orders, entitled to full salary up to 60 years; arrears to be paid after adjustment.