AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the retirement age at the age of 58 years.
Submission on behalf of petitioner is that he is liable to be allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years in pursuance to the provisions made by the opposite parties in regard to the age of retirement of employees of Non Conventional Energy Agency ( hereinafter referred to as '' NEDA''). It is submitted that Rule 11(2) of Non Conventional Energy Department Agency Service Rules ,1989 provides that the ''age of superannuation will be as applicable to the State Government servants". This said rule has not been amended.
The controversy in regard to the retirement age of the employees of NEDA has been decided by this Court in the Special Appeal No. 928 of 2006 Director, Neda and Ors. v. Smt. Urmila Pandey by means of judgment and order dated 12.3.2007. The case of the petitioner is identical to the case of respondent of the aforesaid special appeal and can not be distinguished by the opposite parties in any manner.
Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that Rule 11(2) has been amended. He further states that petitioner was sought to be retired on 31.7.2004 and the said service rules have been amended in the year 2010. Therefore, the submission is that if the petitioner is claiming benefit after the rule has been amended, the date of retirement would be at the age of 58 years.
Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties ,I find that the petitioner was made to retire on 31.7.2004 and at that time the rule prevailing was 11(2) and in accordance with that rule the age of retirement of the employees of the NEDA was 60 years as was prevailing for the employees of the State Government.
The Division Bench of this Court by means of order dated 12.3.2007 held provides that if any Rule has been amended then the same shall not be applied retrospectively and the right of the petitioner shall not be affected. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for salary for the period of two years for which he was not allowed to work.
Since the legal position has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court by means of aforesaid judgment, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the salary of two years.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the retirement notice dated 27.3.2004 and the opposite parties are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period of two years.