ups_01124 — Notification, dated 29-11-2011 issued by Government of Punjab enhancing the retirement age of their employees from 60 years to 62 years ipso facto is applicable to the employees under the control of Union Territory of Chandigarh in view of the notification , dated 13-1-1992 and clarified by subsequent notification, dated 26-9-1992 and 29-10-1992

UPS

Notification, dated 29-11-2011 issued by Government of Punjab enhancing the retirement age of their employees from 60 years to 62 years ipso facto is applicable to the employees under the control of Union Territory of Chandigarh in view of the notification , dated 13-1-1992 and clarified by subsequent notification, dated 26-9-1992 and 29-10-1992 — This chunk discusses the central question before the Tribunal regarding whether the service conditions of employees working under the Union Territory of Chandigarh should be the same as those in Punj... — Facts: The Applicant, herein, a doctor in Pathology is seeking for a direction / declaration that the age of superannuation for medical teachers in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, a Union Territory is to be enhanced from 60 years to 62 years as per rule existing in Punjab Government. The Applicant is to retire at the age of sixty years on 31-7-2013 which is to be enhanced to 62 years which falls on 31-7-2015. Even though the Respondents Union Territory of Chandigarh has referred the case to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi for enhancing the age, the reply is yet to be received. It is further stated that Chandigarh administration, even prior to the said notification of Government of Punjab, dated 29-11-2011 initiated necessary action for enhancing the age of retirement for employees of Union Territory from 60 years to 62 years. Paras. 2 and 3 of the reply by the Respondents are produced for clarity. The Applicant submits that the condition of service of employees of Government of Punjab applies equally to the employees in Union Territory of Chandigarh. To state so, he relied on two Apex Court judgments. The Respondents state that the enhancement of retirement of employees of Chandigarh administration similar to employees of Government of Punjab had been referred to Government of India for orders. He also admits that in the case of one Krishan Gopal Vij, the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years vide notification, dated 23-4-2007 as per Punjab Government obeying the orders of the Tribunal. In view of the above, the solitary question that arises for consideration of the Tribunal is, whether the service condition of the employees working under Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be same as the condition of service of persons appointed to the corresponding posts in the Punjab Civil Services as per notification, dated 13-1-1992 and modified thereafter without their adoption by the Respondents. Two notifications, dated 26-6-1992 and 29-10-1992 issued by Home Secretary of Chandigarh administration clarified that the retirement age of employees of the Union Territory of Chandigarh be at par with their counterparts in State of Punjab. Earlier also, similar situation cropped up and went up to Apex Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Rajesh Kumar Basandhi and another [2002 (11) SCC 549] where the question arose for interpretation of phrase " for the being" in U.T., Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992. In that case, the Apex Court said that there is no need for Union Territory, Chandigarh for issuing any notification subsequently adopting any clarification to the Service Rule by Government of Punjab as in the initial notification, dated 13-1-1992, it has categorically been stated "for the time being". The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment is reproduced.

UPS

Notification, dated 29-11-2011 issued by Government of Punjab enhancing the retirement age of their employees from 60 years to 62 years ipso facto is applicable to the employees under the control of Union Territory of Chandigarh in view of the notification , dated 13-1-1992 and clarified by subsequent notification, dated 26-9-1992 and 29-10-1992 — This chunk discusses the central question before the Tribunal regarding whether the service conditions of employees working under the Union Territory of Chandigarh should be the same as those in Punj... — Facts: The Applicant, herein, a doctor in Pathology is seeking for a direction / declaration that the age of superannuation for medical teachers in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, a Union Territory is to be enhanced from 60 years to 62 years as per rule existing in Punjab Government. The Applicant is to retire at the age of sixty years on 31-7-2013 which is to be enhanced to 62 years which falls on 31-7-2015. Even though the Respondents Union Territory of Chandigarh has referred the case to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi for enhancing the age, the reply is yet to be received. It is further stated that Chandigarh administration, even prior to the said notification of Government of Punjab, dated 29-11-2011 initiated necessary action for enhancing the age of retirement for employees of Union Territory from 60 years to 62 years. Paras. 2 and 3 of the reply by the Respondents are produced for clarity. The Applicant submits that the condition of service of employees of Government of Punjab applies equally to the employees in Union Territory of Chandigarh. To state so, he relied on two Apex Court judgments. The Respondents state that the enhancement of retirement of employees of Chandigarh administration similar to employees of Government of Punjab had been referred to Government of India for orders. He also admits that in the case of one Krishan Gopal Vij, the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years vide notification, dated 23-4-2007 as per Punjab Government obeying the orders of the Tribunal. In view of the above, the solitary question that arises for consideration of the Tribunal is, whether the service condition of the employees working under Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be same as the condition of service of persons appointed to the corresponding posts in the Punjab Civil Services as per notification, dated 13-1-1992 and modified thereafter without their adoption by the Respondents. Two notifications, dated 26-6-1992 and 29-10-1992 issued by Home Secretary of Chandigarh administration clarified that the retirement age of employees of the Union Territory of Chandigarh be at par with their counterparts in State of Punjab. Earlier also, similar situation cropped up and went up to Apex Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Rajesh Kumar Basandhi and another [2002 (11) SCC 549] where the question arose for interpretation of phrase " for the being" in U.T., Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992. In that case, the Apex Court said that there is no need for Union Territory, Chandigarh for issuing any notification subsequently adopting any clarification to the Service Rule by Government of Punjab as in the initial notification, dated 13-1-1992, it has categorically been stated "for the time being". The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment is reproduced.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text