RAM TIRATH AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner, who was Assistant Sugar Commissioner, U. P. , has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 20-4-1992 retiring him from service on completion of 58 years of age. Grievance of the petitioner is that as the Supreme Court in All India Judicial Officers Association \. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 165, has given direction for retirement of Judicial Officers at the age of 60 years, there is no justification in not giving him the same benefit, who was also exercising judicial powers, by virtue of being appellate and revisional authority under Sections 3 (5) and 3-B of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE contention raised by the petitioner is devoid of merit and can not be accepted. Decision of the Supreme Court relates to the Judicial Officers who are members of judicial service and who exercise sovereign judicial powers of the State, THE petitioner was only an administrative officer and was also exercising the appellate and revisional powers under the Act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He cannot be equated with the Judicial Officers, who belong to different service. THEre is no comparison between the administrative officers who may exercise some of the statutory powers in quasi-judicial manner and the judicial Officers, who exercise sovereign judicial powers of the State. Both of them belong to two different classes. THE petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the treatment which is being given to the Judicial Officers. Petitioner not being member of judicial service of the State cannot take advantage of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court.