STATE OF U P Vs. RAM PRAKASH BATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Pankaj Rai, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri A. B. Singh, who has appeared on behalf of petitioner-respondent.

(2.) IT is contended that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner-respondent challenging notice dated 10.7.2007, whereby he was informed of his date of retirement on attaining the age of 58 years though he was entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. The learned standing counsel contended that his final relief included a mandamus directing the appellants to allow him to continue till he attains the age of 60 and by means of the interim order, the Hon'ble single Judge has granted the final relief, which is not permissible in law in view of various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court.

(3.) FOLLOWING catena of decisions of the Apex Court on this aspect, a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 702 of 2005, District Judge, Baghpat v. Anuragh Kumar, decided on 31.12.2005, 2006 (5) AWC 4682 has held as under :