SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA Vs. TAHSILDAR RUDRAPUR DISTRICT DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of these writ petitions, petitioners, who claim to be Lekhpal, have challenged the orders of their retirement from service at the age of 58 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made two submissions in support of the writ petitions, namely, (i) Rule 31 of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958, which prescribed the age of retirement at 58 years, is ultra vires ; and (ii) Lekhpals belong to Group 'D' of the State's service and can be retired only at the age of 60 years in view of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. Sri M. M. Ghildiyal, learned Standing Counsel has disputed the above submissions and has pressed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

(2.) DUE to the agitation of Patwaris though out the State, the Government of U. P. in 1953, decided to reorganise the services of Patwaris and in connection there with issued a Government Order dated 27-4-1953 (hereinafter referred to as the G.O.) according to which the cadre of Lekhpal was created in place of Patwaris. Sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 2 of the G.O. laid down four sources for the cadre of Lekhpal. The relevant extract of the said sub-para 2 is reproduced below :- "3. The cadre of "Lekhpal" would be made up as follows : (a) of all patwaris who did not resign. (b) of the patwaris who withdraw their resignation by March 4, 1953, before they were accepted. (c) of the patwaris who withdraw their resignation before March 4, 1953 but after their acceptance. In categories (b) and (c) above only these patwaris will be reabsorbed who have had an excellent record of work and unsullied reputation and who have not taken an active part in agitation. The reabsorption of patwaris in categories (ab) and (c) would be subject to a further condition that they shall not have attained the age of 57 years 6 months. (d) of fresh recruits subject to the condition that 10 percent of the number of such recruits should be reserved for scheduled caste and due regard is made of the interests of backward classes in accordance with the provisions laid down in appointment (B) Department G.O. No. O. 2266/11-2-13-1940. dated August 26, 1950".

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that fixation of different age of retirement for the Lekhpals by Rule 31 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, the Rule is ultra vires. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. Classifications of the employees into different groups for the purposes of fixing the age of retirement on the basis of the date of entry into service, source of recruitment and/or requirement of the service necessitating the appointment of special trained hands, have been upheld by the Supreme Court from time to time. In L I.C. v. S. S. Srivastava, AIR 1987 SC 1527, Supreme Court upheld the validity of the service regulations which prescribed different age of retirement of the emplyees depending on the date of their entry into service, source of recruitment as well as necessity for having certain type of persons in the service. In that ease the service regulation fixed the age of retirement at 60 years for those' who were transferred from the other undertakings, whose business was taken over as well as for those, who were working in the Government Department and joined the service of the Corporation on need being felt by the Government and the Corporation for their service in the Corporation. For the rest the age of retirement was fixed at 58 years. THE employees for whom different age of retirement was fixed, were treated as employees belonging to different classes and the difference in the age of retirement was upheld due to historical reasons. Similarly in the case of B. S. Yadav v. Chief Manager. Central Bank of India, AIR 1987 SC 1706, the prescription of different age of retirement for these, who were recruited prior to the nationalisation of Banks and those, who were recruited after the nationalisation was upheld by the Supreme Court.