Superannuation age extension applied to Jal Nigam employees; administrative directions could not override statutory service regulation.

The amended Rule 56(a) raising the superannuation age from 58 to 60 years applied to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam employees because Regulation 31 incorporated the service rules and later amendments applicable to State government servants. Section 37 preserved transferred employees on existing terms until changed under the Act, but a direction under Section 89 and an administrative decision under Section 15 could not override or amend a statutory regulation. Regulation 31 could be altered only by a valid amendment made in accordance with the Act. The employees were therefore entitled to retire at 60 years until Regulation 31 was prospectively amended, and the contrary orders were invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years under the amended Rule 56(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules applied to employees of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, and whether a governmental direction or administrative decision could override Regulation 31 governing their service conditions.

Analysis: Under Section 37 of the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1975, employees transferred to the Nigam continued on the same terms and conditions until altered in accordance with the Act. Section 97(2)(c) empowered the Nigam, with previous approval of the State Government, to frame regulations on service conditions, and Regulation 31 provided that pay, allowances, pension, leave, penalties, and other service conditions would be governed by the rules, regulations, and orders applicable to other serving government servants in the State. The phrase used in Regulation 31 covered not only the rules then in force but also later amendments to those rules. A direction under Section 89 and an administrative decision under Section 15 could not validly displace or amend Regulation 31, since a statutory regulation could be altered only by a suitable amendment made in accordance with the Act. Any contrary view would make the service regulation inconsistent with the governing statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 56(a), enhancing superannuation age to 60 years, applied to the Nigam employees, and the contrary direction and administrative orders were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The employees were entitled to retire at 60 years unless and until Regulation 31 was prospectively amended in accordance with the Act, and the impugned orders were set aside.

---