ORDER R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Raj Kumar learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 17.7.1989 (Annexure-4) whereby the petitioner has been directed to retire on 31.7.1989 after completing 58 years of age. The petitioner has prayed that he shall be allowed to retire at the age of 60 years.
3. It appears that the petitioner was high school passed and was appointed as a Patwari/Lekhpal, later on he worked as a Lekhpal and the District Land Revenue inspector wrote to the S.D.M., Ballia by its letter dated 17.7.1989 that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.7.1989 on that day he shall be retired and interim order was passed on 25.7.1989. By interim order of this Court, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work upto the age of 60 years and after completing 60 years on 31.7.1989, the petitioner was retired.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that under the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958, prior to its amendment, the age of superannuation is 60 years and not 58 years. The Lekhpals who were appointed prior to 24.7.1953 were entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. The petitioner was appointed on 9.4.1953 prior to this date. Under similar circumstances, Writ Petition No. 11672 of 1989, Mohd. Ishaq v. State of U.P. and Ors., was filed which was decided by this Court on 8.5.1996. In the said direction, it has been held that the age of retirement of the Lekhpal appointed prior to 27.4.1953 shall be 60 years. This decision was followed in Writ Petition No. 23309 of 1989, Raj Kishore Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors.
5. Learned standing counsel seeks to place reliance on the decision in case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2000 (4) ESC 2309, rendered by learned single Judge in the matter of Tubewell Operators with reference to Government order dated 27.2.1982. In that case, Court did not consider the case of Lekhpals who were appointed prior to the amendment of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958. It will be noted that prior to amendment of Rule 31 of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (Amended) contemplates that Lekhpal shall retire at the age of 60 years. Learned standing counsel referred to Government order dated 31st August, 1989 (Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit). The said Government order dated 31.8.1989 does not take into account the position nor appears to have considered regarding the age of retirement of those Lekhpals who were appointed prior to 24th July, 1953.
6. The judgment rendered by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14016 of 1989, Vishwanath Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ors., has considered the effect of Rule 31 of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 and in that case, which involved similar question of law based on identical facts held that Lekhpals appointed prior to amendment of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958, were entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment dated 11.10.2002 in Writ Petition No. 18990 of 1990, Shambhu Nath Misra v. State of U.P. and Ors., where similar view was taken and Lekhpal was allowed to continue upto the age of 60 years was directed to be given pensionary benefits. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the aforesaid reference indicated above. Therefore, the petitioner has retired after attaining the age of 60 years in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, no further order is required to be passed except that the pension papers of the petitioner shall be processed and finalised expeditiously and the amount of pension and other retiral benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from today unless the same have already been paid.
8. With the above observation and direction the writ petition is finally disposed of.