Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 148 (ALL)

GIRJA SHANKER DWIVEDI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2001-02-15

I.M.QUDDUSI

body2001
I. M. QUDDUSI, J. ( 1 ) THE instant petition is directed against the impugned order dated 7. 8. 2000 and order dated 1. 9. 2000 by which the petitioner has been directed to be retired on the date, of attaining 58 years of age. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner who is working as Jeep Driver and the aforesaid orders have been passed treating the petitioner as Class III employee. ( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel at length and perused the documents annexed therewith. ( 4 ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed against the post of Jeep Driver (light Motor Vehicles) on 28. 1. 1964. According to his own averments made in para-5 of the writ petition, subsequently, the post of Jeep Driver has been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 950- 1500 which has since been revised to Rs. 3050-4590, but his assertion is that even though the post of deep Driver has been placed in Class III but he has not been given any benefit of Class III post. In this regard, the petitioner has moved a representation on 12. 6. 2000 followed by another undated representation, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. ( 5 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has filed a Counter Affidavit annexing therewith certain documents. ( 6 ) IN order to resolve the controversy, first of all, relevant provisions of Rule 56 (a) of Chapter ix of Fundamental Rules are necessary to be quoted hereinafter: "56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Government servant other than a government servant in inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds which be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds which be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. " ( 7 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Notification No. 13/12/93ka/l/1993 dated October 14, 1993 through which "uttar Pradesh Sarkart Vibhag Driver seva Nyamawali, 1993" has been notified by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of Rule 3 of Part 1 (General) of which shows that the post of Driver in the Government department has been classified as group c post. ( 8 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has also shown this Court, copy of Office Memorandum No 1823/ka-4-19 EM/83 dated 14th June, 1984 and a perusal of para-2 of the same it appears that vehicle Driver has been declared to be Group c employee. He has also annexed a copy of the government order dated 23rd February, 1984 issued by Irrigation Anubhag 7, Lucknow in which it has been provided that Drivers working in various department of the Government shall be retired after attaining the age of 58 years. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has streneously urged that according to Explanation to Rule 56 (a) of the Rules, the petitioner is entitled to be retired on attaining the age of sixty years. Explanation to Rule 56 (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental (First Amendment) Rules, 1987 which has come into force w. e. f. 5th November, 1985 is quoted as under : "explanation.-The above proviso shall not be applicable in those cases where the status of a post/posts referred to in the above proviso, has been changed after February 27, 1982 and categorized in higher Group of post/posts. " ( 10 ) IN the instant case admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the year 1964 when the post of Driver was in Group d cadre and the post of Driver has now been classified as group c cadre in the year 3993 that much after coming into force the U. P. Fundamental (First amendment) Rules, 1987. As such, the Notification dated 28th July, 1987, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition will not be applicable in the instant case. As such, the Notification dated 28th July, 1987, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition will not be applicable in the instant case. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case reported in (1994) 1 UPLBEC 593, Tej Pathak v. State of U. P. , and Ors. , I have gone through the above case and finds that the same is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case, the petitioner had completed 60 years in service while in the instant case, position is different. ( 12 ) IN the light of the rules and notifications mentioned above I find no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, must fail. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. .