Allahabad High Court
Vijai Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 16 August, 2021
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 18 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4126 of 2013 Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Swaroop Gaur,Alok Kumar Tiwari,Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
Under challenge are orders dated 05.06.2013, a copy of which is annexure 1 and 09.03.2004, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition whereby the petitioner was informed that as his date of birth is 01.07.1995 he would be retiring on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.06.2013 as well as the order which has fixed the date of retirement at 58 years in District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) is before this Court.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner was sent on deputation to District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) on 05.02.1986. The DRDA is having age of retirement at 58 years while the age of retirement in the petitioners' parent department i.e. Board of Revenue is 60 years and as such the service of the petitioner should have been continued till 60 years. However disregarding the same, the impugned notice was issued informing the petitioner that due to attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years the petitioner would stand retired on 30.06.2013.
Learned Standing Counsel contends that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court passed in Writ Petition no. 19314 (Writ A) of 2014 in re: Susheel Kumar Shukla & others vs State of U.P. & others decided on 17.09.2014 wherein the very issue of temporary employees of Board of Revenue who were sent on deputation to DRDA and retired on attaining the age of 58 years, the writ court had held that no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
It is apparent that the petitioner was on deputation in DRDA from 05.02.1986. Admittedly he was never absorbed in the DRDA. Thus once the age of retirement in DRDA is 58 years consequently it cannot be said that the impugned notices which have been issued to the petitioner and the order fixing the age of retirement in the DRDA to 58 years requires any interference.
Even otherwise the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Susheel Kumar Shukla (Supra).
Considering the aforesaid no ground for interference is made out and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021/J.K. Dinkar