Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 710 (PAT)

Yogendra Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2006-08-17

body2006
ORDER Heard Sri Narendra Prasad, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Raghunandan Prasad Sinha, counsel for the Gaya Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner, who is an employee of the Corporation is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 29 dated 22.4.2006, Annexure-D to the 4th supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5, whereunder his request to extend his date of superannuation until he reaches 60 years of age in terms of resolution of the Corporation dated 22.2.2006. Annexure-2 has been rejected with reference to the instructions of the State Government in the Urban Development Department bearing letter no. 232 dated 28.1.2002, Annexure-A to the 3rd counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that he having completed 40 years of service is not entitled to the benefit of extended age under resolution of the Corporation dated 22.2.2006, Annexure-9. 3. Perusal of the letter bearing Memo No. 232 dated 28.1.2002. Annexure-A indicates that the same was issued to clarify the queries made by Purnea Municipality, copy whereof was circulated to different Municipalities and Corporations of the State, calling upon them not to grant its employees further opportunity to serve who have completed 40 years of service before reaching the age of 58 years. The age of superannuation provided in Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). In other words it was stated thereunder that those employees who have served that organization for 40 years but have not yet attained the age of superannuation as provided under Rule 73 of the Code be superannuated no sooner they come to complete 40 years of service. 4. The State Government amended the Code with effect from 24.3.2005 and thereunder the age of superannuation was extended from 58 years to 60 years. Once that decision was taken by the State Government, the Corporation authorities also took corresponding decision by passing the resolution dated 22.2.2006. Annexure-9 whereunder the age of superannuation of the Corporation employees was also extended to 60 years with effect from 24.3.2005. . 5. Once that decision was taken by the State Government, the Corporation authorities also took corresponding decision by passing the resolution dated 22.2.2006. Annexure-9 whereunder the age of superannuation of the Corporation employees was also extended to 60 years with effect from 24.3.2005. . 5. Petitioner whose date of birth is 7.3.1947 was appointed in the service of the Corporation on 7.2.1966 as such on the date of the resolution of the Corporation dated 22.2.2006, Annexure-9 Extending the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years he had not attained the age of 58 years and was entitled to the benefit of the extended age in terms of the aforesaid resolution dated 22.2.2006, Annexure-9. The Corporation authorities, however, by passing the impugned order bearing Memo No. 29 dated 22.4.2006, Annexure-D to the 4th supplementary counter affidavit rejected the prayer of the petitioner to grant him the benefit of the extended age of superannuation with reference to the aforesaid letter dated 28.1.2002, Annexure-A on the ground that he has already completed 40 years of service and not entitled to the benefit of the extended age of superannuation. 6. Learned counsel for the Corporation in support of the action of Corporation authorities has placed before me a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ragiawa Narayan Mishra Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Rajya Khadi Gramoudyog Board & Ors., reported in 2006(1) PLJR 410 paragraph 18. Perusal of the judgment indicates that the said judgment had considered the scope of Rule 73 of the Code as it stood prior to its amendment and in that context it was held that the employee who has either completed 40 years of service or 58 years of age whichever is earlier shall superannuate. The aforesaid position in my humble opinion has categorically changed after the amendment is made in Rule 73 of the Code which has been duly incorporated by the Corporation when it passed resolution dated 22.2.2006 whereafter any employee of the Corporation who has been recruited at the age of 18 years and above has to be given the benefit of extended age of superannuation until he reaches 60 years of age. Petitioner was born on 7.3.1947 and was appointed in the service of the Corporation on 7.2.1966 as such, on the date of his appointment he was more than 18 years of age and in my humble opinion, he is entitled to the benefit of extended age in terms of the resolution of the Corporation dated 22.2.2006, Annexure-9. 7. In view of my finding's above the order passed by the Corporation refusing to grant the petitioner benefit of the extended age under orders bearing Memo No. 29 dated 22.4.2006, Annexure-D to the 4th supplementary counter affidavit is quashed with direction to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner in the light of resolution of the Corporation dated 22.2.2006, Annexure-9 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This application is allowed. No cost.