SADANAND MISRA Vs. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.1989 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's claim petition No. 208 (F)/III -87 filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in District Board Allahabad in April 1964 and became Sectional Head Clerk on 1.8.1964. Subsequently, he was appointed as Office Superintendent and on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years was retired on 1.7.1984. Me filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal seeking following reliefs:

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The validity of Rule 53 of U.P. Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as '1970 Rules') was neither challenged nor could have been challenged before the Tribunal. In the absence thereof, the petitioner could not have contended that for retirement, he is not governed by Rule 53 of 1970 Rules as amended and applicable in the year 1984, was retired in accordance with the said Rules on attaining age of 58 years. It is always open to the rule framing authority to provide any age of retirement and to enhance and decrease the same. The employee has no vested right to continue till a particular age except in accordance with the prescribed age in the rule. In other words, an employee is entitled to continue and retire in accordance with the applicable Rule as it is on the date of his retirement, i.e. as per the age provided in the relevant rule on that date. Reduction of retiral age from 58 to 55 was upheld by the Apex Court in K. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. : (1985)ILLJ444SC . The right of employer to prescribe and alter age of retirement by framing rules by making amendments therein has also been upheld in Yeshwant Singh Kothari v. State Bank of Indore and Ors. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 592.