AMANULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by an unfortunate petitioner. He was serving as a doctor and was member of Hill sub -cadre in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. He was allocated to the State of Uttaranchal finally because of the order passed by the Central Government. Under that order, all the employees of the State of U.P., who were working under the Hill sub -cadre were finally allocated to the State of Uttaranchal.

(2.) THE petitioner as per the prevailing rule of Uttaranchal, retired at the age of 58 years on 31 -05 -2002. This was really unfortunate for him because had he continued in U.P. and had he not been finally allocated to the State of Uttaranchal, he would have earned two more years of service because of Notification dated 28 -11 -2001 passed by the State of U.P. The petitioner very significantly did not challenge his final allocation to the State of Uttaranchai, which he could have challenged probably on this ground. However, he retired. However, finding that a person like him, respondent no. 5, who was an earstwhile member of general cadre (not Hill sub -cadre), and who was also provisionally allocated to the State of Uttaranchal, was allowed to continue upto the age of 60 years, this petition is filed for the petitioner's continuing upto the age of 60 years. This petition has been filed on 26th of September, 2003 and even ordinarily, was the petition to be allowed, the petitioner could have been allowed to serve upto 31 -05 -2004. Be that as it may, though the petition suffered from latches, the petition was entertained.

(3.) BEFORE us, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent no. 5 would have ordinarily retired at the age of 58 years on 30 -42002. He was not a member of the Hill sub cadre, but was a member of general cadre. However, he had given his choice for being allocated to the State of Uttaranchal and accordingly he was sent provisionally to the State of Uttaranchal, more particularly u/s 75 (2) of the U.P. Reorganisation Act. Before three days of retirement, the State of Uttaranchal, relieved the respondent no. 5 as he was a person of general cadre and made him over to the State of U.P. He accordingly went to State of U.P. Very ironically, the State of U.P. was not prepared to accept him and he was made over the State of Uttaranchal on 31 -7 -2002. Very unfortunately and very significantly, however, on 1 -6 -2002 i.e. barely on the next day the petitioner retired, State of Uttaranchal has increased the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, though this order was passed on 15 -06 -2002. Resultantly, the respondent no. 5 was allowed to continue for two more years. The petitioner, therefore, only claims that though respondent no. 5 was to have retired at the age of 58 years on 30 -04 -2002 i.e. before the retirement date of the petitioner, it being 31 -05 -2002, the respondent no. 5 has been given the advantage to continue upto 60 years, while the same benefit and advantage has been denied to the petitioner. He, therefore, thinks that he has been discriminated against. That is, in short the challenge.