GANPAT PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing counsel.

(2.) Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit. With the consent of parties' counsel, we proceed to decide the writ petition along with connected petitions by a common judgement finally at admission stage.

(3.) These are the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred against the impugned orders by which State Government had declined to enhance the age of superannuation up to the 58 years from 60 years being not in agreement with the decision taken by the Board of Directors of U.P. Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Ltd. The Board of Directors took a decision for enhancement of age from 58 to 60 years and send it for approval by the State Government. By the impugned order State Government had declined to enhance the age of superannuation up to 60 years. However, later on by the Government order dated 22.12.2011 the State Government had extended the age of superannuation.