LALA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Lala Ram who was holding a post of a Superintendent in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, has filed this writ pretition challenging the orders of the Under Secretary (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh Government. Simla, respondent No. 3 directing his retirement with effect from 13th August, 1968, on his completing 58 yeras of age.

(2.) The allegations of the petitioner are that on September 19, 1935 he was officiating as Field Kanungo and holding a substantive post of Patwari on that day. On July 20. 1937 he was confirmed as a 2nd class Field Kanungo against a permanent 'vacancy Alter serving in various capacities as Kanungo, Field Kanungo, Sadar Kanungo, Naib Tehsildar, Head Vernacular Clerk, Assistant Superintendent and eventually as Superintendent in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner at Simla, he was confirmed as such (Superintendent in the office of the Deputy Commissioner) with effect from January 19. 1963. On March 31, 1938 the petitioner held a lien on a permanent post of the Kanungo and continued to hold the same without interruption when he was subsequently promoted to the various jobs as mentioned above. On October 31, 1966, the petitioner was serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab. On re-organisation of that State, his services were transferred by the Central Government to serve in connection with the affairs of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly his services could not be dispensed with save under the orders of the central Government, as required under the Punjab Re-Organisation Act.

(3.) The petitioner's date of birth is August 14, 1910. He completed the age of 58 years on August 13, 1968. On the said date (August 13, 1938) the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, respondent No. 4 under advice from the Under Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Simla, respondent No. 3. informed the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, had considered his Cd.se for retention in service beyond 58 years and has decided that he cannot avail of the higher superannuation age of sixty years and must be retired on August 13, 1968 (A.N.) on attaining 58 years of age, These facts are not disputed by the respondents.