Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

CHAIRMAN, U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR.versusRADHEY SHYAM GAUTAM AND ANR.

2007 INSC 35530 March 2007Dismissed

The respondent, a former employee of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, filed a writ petition seeking to remain in service until the age of 60, arguing that the amendment of Rule 56(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, which raised the retirement age for state government servants from 58 to 60, should apply to him. The app

STATE OF U.P AND ANR.versusJOGENDRA SINGH AND ANR.

1997 INSC 76928 November 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Senior Prosecuting Officer, voluntarily retired on 12‑April‑1976 under Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rule 56 and received pension and gratuity. In 1976 the Rule was amended by adding a proviso that allowed an additional five years of service to be counted for pension and gratuity for those who retired vol

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusLALSARAM

2001 INSC 11423 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Lalsa Ram, a direct‑recruit Naib Tehsildar, was promoted to Deputy Collector solely on seniority. The Uttar Pradesh government later ordered his compulsory retirement under Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, relying on several adverse entries in his service record that pre‑dated his promotion. The Allahabad High

CHANDRA MOHAN VARMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 7021 January 2020Dismissed

Chandra Mohan Varma, a Professor of Cardiology in a Uttar Pradesh government medical college, retired on attaining the age of 60 on 13 August 2014. He was granted a ‘session ending benefit’ extending his service until 30 June 2015 under a Government Order dated 19 November 2012. While he was on this extension, the Stat

HARWINDRA KUMARversusCHIEF ENGINEER, KARMIK AND ORS.

2005 INSC 57518 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, former employees of the Uttar Pradesh Local Self‑Government Engineering Department who became employees of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam under the 1975 Water Supply and Sewerage Act, challenged the Nigam’s order that they retire at 58 years despite a 2002 amendment to Rule 56(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamen

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusVIJAY KUMAR JAIN

2002 INSC 14214 March 2002Disposed off

V.K. Jain, an Assistant Engineer promoted to Executive Engineer in Uttar Pradesh, was compulsorily retired under U.P. Fundamental Rule 56(c) after a Screening Committee considered four adverse entries in his character roll, including a withholding of integrity. The High Court set aside the retirement, holding that only

JAI JAI RAM AND ORS.versusTHE U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LUCKNOW AND ORS.

1996 INSC 7239 July 1996Dismissed

The appellants, drivers and conductors originally employed by the Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways, were deemed on deputation to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation when it was created on 1 June 1972. While on deputation, several of them were terminated or suspended by officers of the Corporation who we

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusDAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY & ORS.

2013 INSC 4052 July 2013Disposed off

The Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, a state corporation, had two categories of engineers—those transferred from the former Local Self‑Government Engineering Department and those directly recruited. While the State amended its fundamental rules to raise the superannuation age from 58 to 60 years for government servants, the Ni

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search