Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Court dismissed a service matter stating that the amended age of superannuation cannot be applicable to a retired employee even though the petition was pending during the term of his employment.

The petitioner was an employee of the U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam. The Company proposed to extend the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years. The petitioner superannuated during the pendency of the proposal. He challenged the retirement notice. Once the proposal was accepted and implemented, the petitioner filed for a writ of mandamus upon the respondents for the salary difference and pension along with a 12% interest from the date of his superannuation.

The Court did not accept the prayer of the petitioner stating that the amended operative age of retirement is applicable prospectively only after it is approved by the State Government. Before such approval, the Corporation does not have any jurisdiction to extend the age. If the employee has already superannuated before the amended rules have been approved, then the pre-amendment rules shall be applicable on him. The extension of age of superannuation shall not be retrospective in nature. [Shanker Dayal Singh v. State of U.P. 2017 SCC OnLine All 1898, decided on 03.07.2017]