RAM SHANKAR TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) THE petitioner, admittedly working as Driver, is claiming retirement on attaining the age of 60 years by referring proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 but the submission, in my view, is patently erroneous.

(3.) PROVISO to Fundamental Rule 56 before its amendment in 2002 permitted the age of retirement as 58 years to all employees except those working in inferior service, where age of retirement was 60 years. Drivers are not members of inferior service. Reliance is placed to a Government Order dated 28.07.1987. So far as Government Order dated 28th July, 1987 is concerned, suffice it to mention that no such amendment as a matter of fact was made under Fundamental Rule 56 since by legislative enactment it came into existence i.e. by U.P. Act No.24 of 1975 and therefore under proviso to Article 309 the same could not have been amended. Moreover, this question has also been considered and decided by Full Bench in Surya Deo Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. and Anr., 2006 5 AWC 5306 and the court in para 21 has said: