Dr. Mangal Datt Tiwari and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—The present petition has been preferred for getting it declared that instead of 60 years, the age of superannuation of the petitioners is 62 years, on the basis of Medical Council of India''s recommendation and on the ground of parity that the age of superannuation of teachers is fixed as 62 years.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that petitioner No. 1, namely, Dr. Mangal Datt Tiwari retired on 31st March, 2010 and petitioner No. 2, namely, Dr. Prem Mukul Topno retired on 30th April, 2010. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is no rule, regulation or Government policy prevailing as on today which gives the vested right in the petitioners for getting age of superannuation as 62 years. As on today, in fact, the age of superannuation is 60 years, as per the prevailing Government policy and, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned Counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:

(i) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have already retired from the services of the respondents on 31st March, 2010 and 30th April, 2010 respectively.

(ii) Learned Counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any right vested in the petitioners that they should get the age of superannuation as 62 years and not 60 years. On the contrary, it is their expectation that the Government should enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years on the basis of recommendation of the Medical Council of India and also on the ground that teachers'' age of superannuation has been enhanced. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that it is always left to Government to draft a suitable policy to fix the age of superannuation. Admittedly as on today, the age of superannuation of the petitioners is 60 years. The Court cannot replace the Governmental policy, even for better reasons. What is in contemplation is not yet crystallized and, therefore, there is no vested right in the petitioners that they should be continued upto 62 years of their age of superannuation.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.