Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 421 (JHR)

Ram Das Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-07

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
Order Heard the parties. 2. The whole grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that by issue of Memo No. 412 dated 26.2.2004 [Annexure-2], he was made to superannuate on and from' 28.3.2005 on completion of 40 years of service in Ranchi Municipal Corporation pursuant to. Rule 73B of the Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Service Code. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that Annexure-2 was issued at the- time when the age of superannuation of a Government servant was 58 years but subsequently, by issue of Resolution No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 [Ahnexure-3], the Government of Jharkhand has enhanced the age of superannuation of the State Government servant by two years, enhancing the age of retirement to be 60 years. ccording to the petitioner, when Annexure3 was issued, the petitioner was very much in service and therefore, as per said Resolution No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 [Annexure-3], he ought to have retired from the service on completion of age of 60 years but he was wrongly made to" retire on completion of age if 58 years only. 4. From perusal of Annexure-2, i.e. the Order issued by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation as well as Resolution No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 [Annexure-3] issued by the Government of Jharkhand enhancing the age of retirement, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. During the service period of the petitioner the age of retirement was enhanced by issue of Resolution No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 [Annexure-3] and. therefore, the Municipal Corporation ought to have issued a fresh order after withdrawing or recalling the order dated 26.2.2004 (Annexure-2) for retirement of the petitioner from service from Municipal Corporation on completion of age of 60 years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that since the petitioner was validly continuing in service on the date the subsequent resolution dated•26.10.2004 contained in Annexure-3 carne into force and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years as per Annexure-3. 6. It is not in dispute that as on today, the petitioner has already completed age of 60 years therefore, there cannot be any order directing the petitioner to rejoin the service but of course, the petitioner would be deemed to have retired from service on completion of age of 60 years i.e. on and from 28.3.2007 and. not from any other date. 7. not from any other date. 7. For the above reasons, I hold that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits treating him to be in service till 28.3.2007 and all the consequential benefits must be given to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.