HARIPATI LAL Vs. TAHSILDAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 12 -9 -1984 (Annexure 1 to the petition), whereby the petitioner was notified that he would be attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 30 -9 -1984. The petitioner was in the service of the respondents as Lekhpal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE facts according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari vice his father on 2nd February 1953 who died on 30 -1 -1953. His case further is that in view of the Government Order No. 4434/1 -B dated Lucknow, April 27, 1953 (Annexure 2 to the Suppl. Affidavit), he was absorbed as Lekhpal and as such by virtue of paragraphs (3) and (18), his age of retirement would be deemed to be 60 years as against 55 years, as it was then the age of retirement of Lekhpals. For ready reference, the relevant clauses of the Government order may be quoted below.

(3.) In the counter -affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner initially entered into the service as patwari but according to the respondents, the petitioner made a debut into the service on April 8, 1953 and not on 2nd February 1953 and as such, according to the stand taken in the counter -affidavit, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits flowing from Clause (18) of the Government Order referred to above prescribing 60 years as the age of superannuation for those members of the service who were absorbed in accordance with the conditions laid down in sub -para (3)(a)(b) and (c) of paragraph 2, on the other hand, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the entry made in Form No. G -3 (Agra -Avadh) paragraph 403, L.R. Manual (7) supervisors' register of Patwaris, Part I(A). In column No. 3, the petitioner's date of appointment was mentioned as 2 -2 -1953. In the counter -affidavit filed by Shyama Ram Gupta, Naib Tehsildar Ghazipur, it is admitted in paragraph 11 that the petitioner had made a representation for correction of entry in his service book. showing that he entered into the service on April 8, 1953. It is also admitted therein that some enquiry was held into the matter but ultimately no order was passed. However, the averments made in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit in which reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon entry in the Supervisor's Register of Patwaris Part I(A) referred to above, has not been disputed by the respondents In view of this, I have no option but to accept the entries made in the "Register" aforesaid which mentions 2nd of February 1953 as the date of appointment of the petitioner as Patwari. In this view of the matter, the petitioner, in terms of the Government Order itself, was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The impugned notice dated 18 -9 -1984 retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years with effect from 30th September, 1984 is illegal and is liable to be quashed.