HIDAIT HUSSAIN Vs. ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in Madarsa Islamiya Jama Masjid, Jhansi, in July. 1978. He was transferred in 1993 as peon to Islamiya Oriental College, Chaniyapura, Jhansi. He is still working in the institution. He made a representation on 8.11.1999 to District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi (in brief B.S.A.) that the option given by him on 11.1.1994 to retire at the age of 58 years be not accepted. This representation was not decided. He filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50620 of 1999. It was disposed of on 3.12.1999 with a direction to B.S.A. to decide his representation. He served the order on B.S.A. along with a representation dated 3.1.2000. The B.S.A. rejected his representation on 10.2.2000. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.2.2000. It is claimed that the petitioner is a class-IV employee. The post of peon is a Group 'D' post. The age of retirement of Group 'D' employee is 60 years, therefore, he cannot be retired at the age of 58 years. On the basis of order dated 10.2.2000, the respondents issued notice on 2.9.2000 to him that he would retire after attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2000.

(2.) Time was granted to the standing counsel on 15.3.2000 for filing counter-affidavit. More than eight months have passed but no counter-affidavit has been filed. Since there is no factual dispute and the only question is of interpretation of Government order dated 30.10.1999, I have heard Sri K. P. Tiwari the learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are formal parties, therefore, service on them is not necessary. I have accepted this statement as the impugned order is of B.S.A. and the petitioner would be retiring on 31.12.2000. In the circumstances, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was being illegally retired by the respondents at the age of 58 years on 31.12.2000. The petitioner is a class-IV employee and his age of retirement is 60 years. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 10.2.2000 by the B.S.A. on the basis of option given by him on 11.1.1994 as per Government order dated 23.11.1993. He urged that the Government order dated 23.11.1993 was modified on 30.10.1999 and it was mentioned that option given as per Government order dated 23.11.1993 was meaningless. The learned standing counsel has supported the impugned order.