1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The petitioner, admittedly working as Driver, is claiming retirement on attaining the age of 60 years by referring proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 but the submission, in my view, is patently erroneous.
3. Proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 before its amendment in 2002 permitted the age of retirement as 58 years to all employees except those working in inferior service, where age of retirement was 60 years. Drivers are not members of inferior service. Reliance is placed to a Government Order dated 28.07.1987.
4. So far as Government Order dated 28th July, 1987 is concerned, suffice it to mention that no such amendment as a matter of fact was made under Fundamental Rule 56 since by legislative enactment it came into existence i.e. by U.P. Act No.24 of 1975 and therefore under proviso to Article 309 the same could not have been amended. Moreover, this question has also been considered and decided by Full Bench in Surya Deo Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr., 2006(5) AWC 5306 and the court in para 21 has said:
"learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondent has urged that the two cases of Shubh Nath Dubey and Srikant Shukla (Supra) were not correctly decided. He has urged that the age of superannuation for Government servants is provided under Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules Chapter II part 2 to 4. The age of superannuation of all the Government servants of inferior category was 60 years. .... A perusal of the decisions in Shubh Nath Dubey and Srikant Shukla (Supra) shows that the provision relating to higher pay scale and treating drivers as 'technical employees' were neither brought to the notice of the Court nor were considered. .... In Our opinion, the aforesaid two decisions have not been correctly decided and as such they are hereby over-ruled."
5. In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 14.8.2014 AK