2010 INSC 0090
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                  Uttaranchal Pey Jal S.V.A.N.Nigam

                                                      Vs.

                                                 Arvind Garg

                                            C.A.No.478 of 2010

                                      (D.K. Jain and T.S Thakur JJ.)

                                                 18.01.2010

                                                   ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Since this batch of appeals involve a similar issue, they are disposed of by this common
order.

3. 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 case1 despite the fact that they did not
challenge their retirement and collected the post retirement benefits.

4. A similar issue came up for consideration of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. vs.
Jaswant Singh & Anr.2 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).

5. 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 furnished. As per the said statement, except for Lalit Mohan Pant, all
the respondents had preferred the writ petitions much after their superannuation.

6. 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.

1  SpotLaw
7. 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.

8. 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.

9. All the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.

1(2005) 13 SCC 300
2(2006) 11 SCC 464

2  SpotLaw