JUDGMENT B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing the appropriate writ or directions to the respondent-State to permit the petitioner to continue till he attains the age of 60 years and for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules in financial Hand book and the rules contained in the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1947, which provides that Class III employees would be superannuated on attaining the ago of 53 years.
2. The petitioner is working as a Class III employee in the civil courts at Allahabad and he has challenged the vires of the aforesaid Rules providing the age of superannuation being fixed at 58 years on the ground that a learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 6896 of 1993, Girja Prasad Singh v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 12-7-1993, had observed that the ratio of the All India Judges Association v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 165 : (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1387 (SC) hereinafter called the All India Judges Association First Case) will apply also to the clerks and they may also be retired at the age of 60 years.
3. However, in pursuance of the All India Judges Association first case the relevant Rules in the State of U. P. have been amended providing that all judicial officers in the State of U. P. shall reach the age of superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years.
4. After the delivery of the aforesaid judgment by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Girja Prasad Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed its earlier judgment of All India Judges Association first case on 24-8- 1993 in All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.; AIR 1993 SC 2493, (hereinafter called the All India Judges Association second case, wherein the Court had held as under:-
"There is. however, one aspect we should emphasise here. To that extent the direction contained in the main judgment under review shall stand modified. The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts have a potential for continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by approptiate Committees of Judges of the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial officers'past record of service, character rolls, equality of judgments and other relevant matters.
5. However, the Division Bench of this Court in L.P. Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors., 1996 ALJ 1431, took the view that retirement age of all the judicial officers would be 58 years unless High Court grants the extension, after judging the utility and suitability of the individual judicial officer, for a period of two years after examining their service records as this extension can be given as incentive only to those who can prove their utility because of their integrity and outstanding careers.
6. The same view had been taken subsequently by another Division Bench of this Court in B.P. Bairagi v. State of U.P., 1996 ALJ 1559. If the judicial officers had to retire at the age of 60 years, then there could have been no occasion to constitute the Evaluation Committee to assess the service records of the judicial officers and place it before the High Court and then make recommendation to the appointing authority for extension.
7. In Arvind Narain Sorti and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr., 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not extend the benefit of the All India Judges Association first or second case even to the presiding officers and Members of the Industrial Courts in M. P. in spite of the fact that the pay structure and service conditions of them had earlier been the same.
8. In view of the above I find no force in this writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed.