JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has sought quashing of impugned notice dated 27.1.2005 contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition informing the petitioner that he shall be retired from the College service in the after-noon of 1.4.2005.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Accountant Clerk on 24.10.1970 in Dev Nagari Degree College, Meerut. The College is affiliated to the Chaudhari Charan Singh University, Meerut to which] the provisions of the State Universities Act 1973 are applicable. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 20.11.1980. After promotion the petitioner is working as the Office Superintendent, a Class III post, in the College.
4. A Government Order dated 6.4.1984 was issued by the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad amending earlier Government Order dated 18.1.1983 providing that the non-teaching staff giving option for retirement at the age of 60 years will be entitled to pension, family pension and G.P.F only while the non-teaching staff giving option for retirement at the age of 58 years will be given the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity at par with the State Government employees along with pension and G.P.F. It is further provided therein that the option was to be given within 90 days of the issuance of the Government Order.
5. By another Government Order/Circular dated 4.2.2004 the age of retirement of teachers has been enhanced to 62 years. The said order is as under:-
^^izs"kd] uhjk ;kno] izeq[k lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] 1- funs'kd] mPp f'k{kk m-iz-
bykgckn 2- dqy lfpo leLr jkT; fo'ofo|ky;] mRrj izns'kA mPp f'{kk vuqHkkx&2 y[kuÅ 4 Qjojh 2004 fo"k;
% jkT; fo'ofo|ky;ksa ,oa muls lEc) @ lg;qDr v'kkldh; lgk;rk%izkIr egkfo|ky;ksa esa v/;kidksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q esa o`f) ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] 1- 'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr- ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd jkT;
fo'ofo|ky;ksa ,oa muls lEc)@lg;qDr v'kkldh; vuqnkfur egkfo|ky;ksa esa 'kklu }kjk l`ftr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zjr v/;kidksa dh orZeku vf/ko"kZrk vk;q esa o`f) dj nh tk;A 2-
vr% jkT;iky egksn; rkRdkfyd izHkko ls jkT; fo'ofo|ky;ksa ,oa muls lEc)@lg;qDr v'kkldh; vuqnkfur egkfo|ky;ksa esa 'kklu }kjk l`ftr inksa ij dk;Zjr v/;kidksa dh orZeku vf/ko"kZrk vk;q dks 60 o"kZ ls c<+kdj 62 o"kZ fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr ls iznku djrs gSaA QyLo:i 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk; ij feyusa okys lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk 10 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk 62 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij vuqeUu; gksaxsA 3-
Jh jkT;iky egksn; ;g Hkh vkns'k iznku djrs gSa fd tks f'k{kd 1-7-2003 ds & & vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ dj l=kUr ykHk ij py jgs gSa mUgsa Hkh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q o`f) lEcU/kh ykHk iznku fd;k tk,sxkA 4-
bl lEcU/k esa iwoZ esa fuxZr leLr 'kklukns'k mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;saxsA rFkk budh 'ks"k 'krasZa ;Fkkor jgsaxhA 5-
m-iz- jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e 1973 ds fu;e 50 ds mi fu;e&6 ds vuqlkj leLr fu;eksa esa vko';d la'kks/ku dh dk;Zokgh 'kklukns'k t+kjh gksus ds 30 fnu ds vUnj lqfuf'pr dj yh tk,xhA 6-
;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; i= la[;k ;w-vks-&bZ&11&[email protected]&2004] fnukad 4-2-2004 esa izkIr lgefr ds vUxZr fuxZr fd, tk jgs gSaA Hkonh;
[email protected] ¼uhjk ;kno½ izeq[k lfpoA**
6. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has claimed that he should also be retired at the age of 62 years in view of the aforesaid Government Order dated 4.2.2004.
7. From the Circular/Government Order dated 4.2.2004 it appears that the age of only those teachers has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years who are working in ifjinh; izkFkfed fo|ky;] ifjinh; mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; ,oa lgk;rk izkIr mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; in which the State Government has created posts. Prima-facie the Circular/Government Order dated 4.2.2004 is not applicable to the present case.
8. Admittedly the petitioner is a Class III employee, i.e., a non-teaching staff and not a teacher. The Government Order dated 4.2.2004 is not applicable to him as he belongs to a different class of employees than teacher to whom only the aforesaid Circular/Government Order has been made applicable. Moreover, vide judgment dated 25.2.2005 rendered in Writ Petition No. 16424 of 2004 (Ram Mohan v. State of U.P. and Ors.) connected with a bunch of writ petitions the Court has held as under: - "Now taking the case in hand, it is true that Regulation 21 of Chapter-III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 provides age of superannuation ranging from Principal, teachers and other employees to be sixty years. There is no provision akin to Section 38(1) of Osmania University Act 1959 under U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, providing for that there should be uniform service conditions of service for teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution. Merely because at one point of time age of superannuation has been similarly provided for the non-teaching staff cannot claim that qua teachers they form the same class. However at the point of time of extending the age of superannuation only claim of teachers have been considered and the claim of petitioners has not at all been considered and till date no exercise has been undertaken for amending condition is of service of Class III and Class IV employees. Full-fledged procedure has been provided for as to how decision has to be taken for extending the age of superannuation by amending the Regulations. This exercise has to be undertaken by the State Government and this Court has no authority to extend the age of superannuation of Class III and Class IV employees. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (2) E&SCS 1058 has held that this Court cannot give binding directive to State Government to extend the age of superannuation by amending the Rules. Court can only ask for consideration."
9. Since the Circular/Government Order dated 4.2.2004 has not been extended to the non-teaching staff, which is a separate class, no mandamus can be issued directing that the petitioner be retired at the age of 62 years and not at the age of 60 years.
10. The petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.