CHANDGI RAM Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the erstwhile Delhi Transport Service on 17-9-1956. Subsequently the said Delhi Transport Service was taken over and substituted as Delhi Transport Undertaking upon the enactment of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Later w.e.f. 3-11-1971 the said Delhi Transport Undertaking had been taken over as the Delhi Transport Corporation under the provisions of Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 read with Delhi Transport Laws (Amendment) Act 1971. It is the common case of the parties that the conditions of service of the employees were governed by the regulations which were framed and known as D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations 1952 read with the standing office order No. 91 dated 4/7-10-1963. Under regulation 10 of the said Regulations the age of retirement of an employee was 55 years. By an office order No. 99 dated 4/7-10-1963 the age of retirement was enhanced from 55 to 58 years. The relevant part of the said standing order reads, as under :

(2.) The petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 21-1-1979 as his recorded date of birth is 21-1-1924. Inaccordance with clause (f) of the office order he was directed to undergo medical examination by the Medical Board of the respondent-corporation in order to adjudge his suitability for extension beyond the age of 55 years. The petitioner was adjudged and declared medically fit by Medical Board on 1-1-1979 and was, therefore, granted extension of service up to 31-1-1980 in terms of the said office order. Before completion of the said period of extension, the petitioner was again asked to undergo another medical test on 30-11-1980 for another extension. He accordingly appeared before the Medical Board and was found fit. Accordingly, the petitioner was given another extension up to 31-1-1981 vide communication of the respondent-corporation dated 26-12-1979. Though the petitioner had been given extension up to 31-1-1981 but he was served with an office order dated 1-2-1980 stating that he had attained the age of 55 years on 21-1-1979 and that he was being served three months' notice w.e.f.2-2-1980 to the effect that services of the petitioner shall be terminated by way of retirement w.e.f. 1-5-1980.

(3.) The petitioner made representations on receipt of the aforesaid notice of retirement. However, the representations did not find favour with the Corporation and hence the order bad been challenged by the present petition.