GOPESH CHANDRA SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of Fish Farmers Development Agency, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1860"), in which the promoters are the State and its authorities. The dispute relates to age of retirement. The Chief Executive Officer by means of impugned notice dated 21.05.2013 has informed petitioner that he would retire on attaining the age of 58 years, i.e. on 31.07.2013.

(2.) The submission advanced by Sri S.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's status in all respect is similar to that of employees of District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "DRDA") and in respect thereto there are certain decisions of this Court holding that DRDA being a society formed by State Government, therefore, a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence its employees are entitled to continue in service till he/they attained the age of 60 years in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56 which shall be applicable to them. It is contended that petitioner is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years in view of aforesaid decisions, namely, Kalika Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 45 (SS) of 2005, decided on 09.04.2007; Jai Indra Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 39043 of 2006, decided on 08.09.2009; and, Ram Pal Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 2917 of 2012, decided on 31.05.2012

(3.) It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the employees of DRDA, as per existing law, are not entitled to get protection of Fundamental Rule 56, the petitioner would also liable to meet the same fate. I would now thus proceed to consider as to what is the position in DRDA with regard to age of retirement vis-a-vis various authorities of this Court.