IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 478  OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15969 of 2009)

Uttaranchal Pey Jal S.V.A.N. Nigam & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

Arvind Garg & Anr. ...Respondent

WITH

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.479/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15974 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.480/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15975 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.481/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15976 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.482/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15977 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.483/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15978 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.484/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15979 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.485/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15980 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.486/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15981 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.487/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15982 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.488/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15983 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.489/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15984 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.490/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15985 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.491/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15986 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.492/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15987 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.493/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15988 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.494/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15989 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.495/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15990 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.496/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15991 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.497/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15992 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.498/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15993 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.499/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15994 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.500/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15995 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.501/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15996 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.502/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15997 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.503/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15998 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.504/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 15999 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.505/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16001 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.506/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16004 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.507/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16006 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.508/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16007 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.509/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16008 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.510/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16009 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.511/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16010 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.512/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16015 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.513/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16011 of 2006

:2:

CIVIL APPEAL NO.514/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16012 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.515/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16013 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.516/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16018 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.517/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16016 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.518/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 14757 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.519/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 19960 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.520/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16511 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.521/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16512 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.522/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16513 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.523/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16257 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.524/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 16515 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.525/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 17681 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.526/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 17801 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.527/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 17987 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.528/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18078 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.529/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18081 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.530/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18082 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.531/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18083 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.532/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18085 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.533/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18087 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.534/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18096 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.535/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18097 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.536/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18098 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.537/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18099 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.538/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18100 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.539/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18102 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.540/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18107 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.541/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18108 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.542/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18109 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.543/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18112 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.544/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18113 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.545/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18124 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.546/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18130 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.547/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18133 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.548/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18165 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.549/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18210 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.550/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18293 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.551/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18295 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.552/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18296 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.554/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18297 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.555/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18298 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.556/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18299 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.557/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18300 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.558/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18333 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.559/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18342 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.560/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18370 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.561/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18373 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.562/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 18892 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.563/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 17485 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.564/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 17486 of 2006

:3:

CIVIL APPEAL NO.565/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 17487 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.566/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 17155 of 2006

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Since this batch of appeals involve a similar issue,  

they are disposed of by this common order.

The  short  question  for  consideration  in  these  

appeals is whether the employees of the appellant Nigam  

were entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60-  

years,  in  the  light  of  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Harwinder Singh's case (2005) 13 SCC 300, despite the fact  

that they did not challenge their retirement and collected  

the post retirement benefits.

A similar issue came up for consideration of this  

Court in  U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. vs.  Jaswant Singh & Anr.  

2006 (11) SCC 464, wherein applying the doctrine of laches,  

it was held that no relief could be granted to the persons  

who had approached the Court after their retirement.  Only  

those persons who had filed the writ petitions when they  

were  in  service  or  who  had  obtained  interim  orders  for  

their  retirement,  could  be  allowed  to  benefit  from  the  

decision in Harwinder Singh's case (supra).

Pursuant to our order dated 26th October, 2009, an  

affidavit  has  been  filed  by  the   Executive  Engineer,  

Uttaranchal  Pey  Jal  Nigam.   In  the  said  affidavit  

information with regard to the date of retirement of each  

of the respondents and date of their filing writ petitions  

in the High Court, seeking parity in the age of retirement

with   the   employees   of   the State Government has been

:4:

furnished.  As per the said statement, except for Lalit  

Mohan  Pant,  all  the  respondents  had  preferred  the  writ  

petitions much after their superannuation.

In view of the information so furnished, which is  

not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, we are  

of the opinion that in view of the decision of this Court  

in  Jaswant Singh's case (supra) the decision of the High  

Court cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, following the said decision, with which  

we are in respectful agreement, the appeals are allowed and  

the impugned orders are set aside leaving the parties to  

bear their own costs.

At  this  juncture,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf of the respondents prays that the appellant may be  

directed to consider the claim of the respondents at least  

for  the  purpose  of  pensionary  benefits.   We  express  no  

opinion  on  the  submission.  It  will  be  open  to  the  

respondents  to  make  representation  to  the  authorities  

concerned on the issue.  As and when such  representations  

are made, the same shall be considered expeditiously on  

their own merit.

All  the  appeals  stand  disposed  of  in  the  above  

terms.

                              ...................J.             (D.K. JAIN)  

                ..................J.                                       (T.S THAKUR) New Delhi,

January 18, 2010.