ISHAN AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Who is working on a clerical post in the Judgeship Of Bareilly and is due to retire tomorrow (3lst August, 1993) after attaining the age of fifty eight years, approached this Court claiming that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age of sixty years. In support of this plea, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Girja Prasad Singh V. State of U. P. and others : Civil Misc. Writ No: 6896 of 1993 decided on 12th July, 1993. THE learned Single Judge did not accept the appellant's plea and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by that judgment, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) IT is not disputed that under statutory rules the appellant has to retire on attaining -the age of fifty eight years. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that clerks in various departments of the Government are identically situated and, therefore, there is no occasion to fix one age of retirement in one department or office and another age of retirement in another office or department. Regulation 21 of Chapter 3 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides sixty years as the age of retirement of clerical staff working in recognized High Schools and Intermediate Colleges. Rule 20 of the U. P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and conditions of Service of Clerks provides fifty eight years as the age r5f retirement of the clerical staff working in recognized Junior High Schools. In Girija Prasad Singh's case (supra), it was asserted before the learned Single Judge of this Court that rule 20 was discriminatory and the petitioner in that writ petition was entitled to continue upto the age of sixty years as prescribed in Regulation 21 referred to hereinabove. The learned Single Judge accepted the plea and directed that Girja Prasad Singh shall continue in service till he attained the age of sixty years. While upholding the claim of Girija Prasad Singh, the learned Single Judge has made some observations upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his plea that discrimination cannot be practised. IT has been observed : "IT may be mentioned that a clerical job is of routine nature which does not call for any special skill. Hence in the case of clerks there should not be two different age limits of retirement. What difference does it make whether a clerk is working in a High School or in a Junior High School ? The nature of function will be basically the same."

(3.) THE service conditions, including the age of retirement, are fixed by the Administrative authorities on a consideration of various factors and longevity in age is only one of the factors. Another potent factor is the unemployment which a longer period of service may result into. In our country, there is large scale unemployment. If the age of retirement is enhanced by two years, it would mean lack of vacancies for two years and consequently lack of recruitment of fresh candidates for two years. This may, result in increase of unemployment. For the reasons stated therein, we with utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, do not subscribe to the view expressed by him.