Kalika Ram vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order with notice of retirement dated 26th June, 1998 retiring him at the age of 58 years, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The second relief sought by means of this writ petition is for issuing mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service in the department till he attains the age of 60 years i.e., 31.5.2000.

The facts of the case are that petitioner''s date of birth is 6.5.40 and he is High School fail. Reliance has been placed on the G.O. No. G-496/Das-534(19)-57 Lucknow, dated 28th July, 1987. By this G.O. Fundamental Rule 56(A) was amended and it is contended that by virtue of the aforesaid amendment, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years and his pre-mature retirement at the age of 58 years is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to illegal reduction in service tenure.

''kklukns''k laxzg

�8�

m�kj izns''k ljdkj]

fo�k �lkekU;� vuqHkkx&2

la[;k th&25496@nl&534 �19�557

y[ku� fnukad 28 tqykbZ] 1987

vf/klwpuk %

izdh.kZ&&

lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 389 ds ijUrqd }kjk izn�k ''kf� dk iz;ksx djds jkT;iky QkbusfUl;y gSUM cqd [k.M nks ls pkj esa fn;s x;s Q.MkeasUVy :Yl esa la''kks/ku djus dh n`f"V ls fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrs gSa %

m-iz- QUMkesUVy �izFke la''kks/ku� fu;ekoyh] 1987

laf{kIr uke vkSj izkjEHk&15�1� ;g fu;ekoyh m�kj ins''k Q.MkesUVy �izFke la''kks/ku� fu;ekoyh] 1987 dgh tk;sxh A

�2� ;g 5 uoEcj] 1985 eas izo`r gq;h le>h tk;sxh A Q.MkesUVy :Yl 56 dk la''kks/ku �2� QkbusfUl;y gSUM cqd] [k.M nks] Hkkx ls pkj esa fn;s x;s m�kj izns''k Q.MkesaUVy :Yl ds fu;e 56 esa %

�1� [k.M �,� ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr [k.M j[k fn;k tk;sxk vFkkZr 56�d� bl fu;e ds vU; [k.Mksa esa vU;Fkk micfU/kr ds flok; izR;sd ljdkjh lsod ml ekg ds ftlesa og vBBkou o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djs vfUre fnu vijkUg esa lsok fuo`r gksxk mls vf/ko"kZrk ij lsok fuo`�k ds fnukad ds i''pkr ljdkj dh iwoZ Loh�fr ls yksd vk/kkj ij ftls vfHkfyf[kr fd;s tk;sxk] lsok esa j[kk tk ldrk gS fdUrq vfr fo''ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds flok; mls lkB o"kZ dh vk;q ds i''pkr lsok esa ugha j[kk tkuk pkfg;s A

ijUrq 5 uoEcj] 1985 ds iwoZ HkrhZ fd;k x;k lewg ^^?k** in dks /kkj.kk djus okyk dksbZ ljdkjh lsod ml ekl ds ftlesa og lkB o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djsa vfUre fnu vijkUg esa lsok fuo`�k gksxk A

Li"Vhdj.k&& mi;qZDr ijUrqd mu ekeyksa ij ykxw ugha gksxk tgk� mDr ijUrqd esa fufnZ"V in@inksa dk izkfLFkfr esa 27 Qkjojh] 1982 ds i''pkr ifjorZu fd;k x;k gS mPprj lewg ds in@inksa esa oxhZ�r fd;k x;k gks A [k.M �[k� fudky fn;k tk;sxk A

vkKk ls

ih-ds- lDlsuk]

izeq[k lfpo A

lR; izfrfyfi A

A perusal of Clause-I of the aforesaid amended G.O. makes it crystal clear that the age of retirement of all the Government servants is 58 years, but, those employees, who were appointed in Group-D prior to November 5, 1985, would retire at the age of 60 years. The petitioner was appointed as Chaukidar/Cleaner as Class-IV employee in the pay scales of Rs. 305-5-330-EB-6-360-EB-390 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Prakhand, Ghazipur vide order dated 20/21-7-1989. He was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 1.4.1994. Thus, the petitioner was appointed after 5th of November, 1985. His case falls in Clause-I of the aforesaid amended G.O. dated 28th July, 1987.

In these circumstances petitioner''s age of superannuation would be 58 years under Clause-I of the G.O. dated 28th July, 1987. He is not entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years as he was appointed in service after 5th November, 1985.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.