TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are being provided here as under, enhanced the retirement age of its employees to 60 years in a Board meeting. The State authorities which had enhanced the retirement age of their employees from 58 to 60 are being enumerated here as under: (i) The State of U.P. :- By the order of the State Government dated 28.11.2001 the fundamental Rule 56 (a) was amended and the age of retirement of a government servant was enhanced from the age of 58 to 60 years. (ii) The Krishi Utpadan Mandi:- By the order dated 16.5.2005 the State Government had enhanced the retirement age of the employees of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti from 58 to 60. (iii) The U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam:- By the Government Order dated 15.12.2006 the retirement age of the employees o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... financial assessment of such burden, and the effect of increase of retirement age on other employees. It may thereafter refer the matter to the concerned Administrative Department of the State Government for its evaluation and recommendation, and for forwarding the same to the State Government for its approval. We also direct that if such a decision is taken by the State Government, it will be open to the State Government to consider to give effect to the increase in the age of retirement with effect from the date when the NOIDA had resolved to bear the financial burden, or from any such date, which the State Government may find it expedient." Thereafter the Noida Authorities by their resolution no. 176 dated 9.7.2012 and the consequentia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charges, and to the learned Standing Counsel free of cost, if applied, on on before 4.9.2012. " It appears that after the order was placed before the State Government on 30.9.2012 a Government Order was issued and the age of retirement was raised from 58 to 60. However by condition no. 1(2) of the order dated 30.9.2012 it was observed that the order was to apply prospectively and persons who had retired earlier were not to be given any benefit of it. Aggrieved thereof the petitioners amended the instant writ petition and prayed for the quashing of the of the clause no. 1(2) of the Government Order dated 30.9.2012. Clause-1(2) of the Government Order is being reproduced here as under: Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sent by the Noida Authorities then the petitioners' interest would have been safeguarded and they would have also retired at the age of 60 years. (VII) The State Government could have very well either accepted the resolution of the Noida Authority or could have rejected the same as and when it reached it but it was not proper for it to have slept over the matter ad infinitum. Furthermore, there was absolutely no justification for them to have provided the extension of retirement age prospectively. In reply, however the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State Government stated that State Government had a lot of business at its hands and delays do occur. For the delay, thus, the State could not be blamed. The Noida Authoriti....