High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Lakshan Prasad v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29710 of 2007  RD-AH 10892 (1 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29710 of 2007
Ram Lakshan Prasad ............................................................ Petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh & others ............................... Respondents
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner. Sri R. K. Srivastava has appeared for the respondents.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria by which the representation of the petitioner for treating his age of superannuation as 60 years in place of 58 years has been rejected. Petitioner completed 58 years of age on 19.1.2005 and was to retire on 31st of January, 2005. Petitioner moved an application that he be retired at the age of 60 years relying on the Government order dated 28.11.2001 which was issued with regard to the Government servants. Petitioner filed a writ petition No. 8659 of 2005 in which this Court passed an order that the superannuation age of the petitioner shall abide by the final result of the writ petition, this order was filed on 21.2.2005 and the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 30.8.2006. By the notification dated 25.8.2005 the age of superannuation with regard to clerks of recognised Junior High Schools was extended from 58 years to 60 years. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by the impugned order has held that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Government order dated 25.8.2005 since the petitioner had already completed age of 58 years on 19.1.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Government order dated 25.8.2005 since in August, 2005 he was continuing in service.
I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner was working as clerk in a Junior High School. His service conditions were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools ) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1967 i. e. prior to enforcement of the said Rules.
The petitioner being clerk in Junior High School shall be governed by 1984 Rules whether he was appointed prior or subsequent to the aforesaid Rules, the date of appointment shall not make any difference regarding applicability of Rules, According to which Rules the age of retirement of the clerk was 58 years. The State Government extended the said age of retirement for clerks by the Government order dated 25.8.2005 on which date the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation. The benefit of the Government order dated 25.8.2005 was not applicable to the petitioner, he having completed 58 years of 19.1.2005. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rightly considered all aspects of the matter and rejected the representation of the petitioner. There is no error in the impugned order dated 18.11.2006 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.