Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 90 (UTT)

Abdul Rafeek v. State of Uttaranchal

2004-06-22

P.C.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT Hon'ble P. C. Verma, A.C.J. : The present writ petition was dismissed on 4.6.2004 for want of prosecution. A restoration application has been filed by Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner praying for recall of the order dated 4.6.2001 passed by this Court. Grounds mentioned for restoration in the application are found satisfactory. Therefore, restoration application is allowed. The order dated 4.6.2004 passed by this Court is, hereby, recalled. The writ petition is restored at its original number. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.10.2002 by which the petitioners were retired at the age of 58 years. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner No. 1 was inducted into the services of respondents in the month of December 1965 as Tractor Mechanic and the petitioner No. 2 was inducted into the services of respondents in the month of April, 1974 as Leth Man and the services of the petitioners were regularised in the year 1980. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are put to substantial injustice by the respondents by retiring them at the age of 58 years and not paying their salary. According to the petitioners, the State of Uttaranchal vide Notification dated 15.6.2002 enhanced the age of retirement of its employees to 60 years from 58 years. As such, since the petitioners were State Government employees, they ought to have been retired at the age of 60 years. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners jointly made a representation to respondent No.3 dated 23.4.2003 and prayed that they may be paid salaries from November, 2002. It is stated by the petitioners that even the District Treasury Officer, Nainital has also not passed the gratuity of the petitioners as they were retired at the age of 58 years and returned the papers of the petitioners back to respondents putting the objection that under which Government Order, the petitioners are retired. When, the respondents failed to take any action, petitioner No.2 again made a representation to respondent No.3 on 24.5.2003 requesting that he may be given the salary and the work. When, the respondents failed to take any action, petitioner No.2 again made a representation to respondent No.3 on 24.5.2003 requesting that he may be given the salary and the work. In reply to that representation, the respondent No.3 has written to respondent No.2 that the services of the petitioners are governed by the Factory Act, as such they would be retired at the age of 58 years. Petitioners have stated the there is no specific notification regarding the retirement age of 58 years of the employees, whose services are governed by the Factory Act. It is further stated by the petitioners that the establishment, where the petitioners were posted is a workshop for the maintenance of vehicles and not a factory within the meaning of the Factory Act. It is also st3ted by the petitioners that there is no provision in the Government Order dated 15.6.2002 that the State Government employees, whose services are governed by the Factory Act would be retired at the age of 58 years. 6. In this regard, the Notification dated 15th June, 2002 is on record, which clearly provides that the retirement age of all the State Government employees will be 60 years instead of 58 years in the public interest. In the said Notification dated 15th June, 2002 there is no provision that the State Government employees whose services are governed by the Factory Act would be retired at the age of 58 years and the petitioners are also workmen under the Standing orders. The said Notification dated 15th June, 2002 is quoted below: 7. The petitioners and the Government servants and they have completed the age of 58 years in service as such. Therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Government Order, which has been issued by the Personnel Department of the State of Uttaranchal for all the Governments Servants. Therefore the petitioners could not have been retired at he age of 58 years 'by the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2002 is, hereby, quashed. No order as to costs.