Dev Raj Singh vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner employed with the Respondent No. 2 Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation (DSCSC) has filed this writ petition impugning the decision of the 136th meeting held on 25th September, 2008 of the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 2 (DSCSC) deciding that the retirement age of employees of the Respondent No. 2 (DSCSC) shall continue to be 58 years and also impugning the order dated 19th August, 2009 of the Respondent No. 2 (DSCSC) communicating to the Petitioner that he shall stand retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 30th September, 2009. The Petitioner also seeks declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to retire at the age of 60 in terms of Government of India''s decision and in terms of the 5th Central Pay Commission''s recommendation which had been extended to other autonomous organizations and public sector undertakings including the sister organizations of the Respondent No. 2.

Notice of the petition was issued. Pleadings have been completed.

Today the counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 have stated that the matter in controversy in the present petition is covered by the judgment dated 7th June, 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 5481/2008 titled Yagyaval Sharma v. D.S.C.S.C. Ltd. and a copy whereof was handed over in the Court.

The Petitioner in the aforesaid judgment also had contended that non-grant of enhanced age on superannuation as 60 years by the Respondent No. 2 (DSCSC) was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and sought setting aside of the order of the Respondent No. 2 (DSCSC) retiring him at the age of 58 years. It was noted in the said judgment that the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 2 (DSCSC) had taken a decision in its 143rd meeting to enhance the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years w.e.f. 26th March, 2010 and that the employees who had retired prior to 26th March, 2010 shall not be having any claim of enhanced retirement age of 60 years. This Court held that the service conditions of the employees of the Respondent No. 2 (DSCSC) being governed by the Rules and the Petitioner therein having superannuated in accordance with the Rules and having not challenged the Rules, had no claim for retirement at the age of 60 years. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

The position in the present case is identical.

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.