SHYAMA AND OTHERS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.R. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised none appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3. Learned Standing counsel is present on behalf of respondent No. 1. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 and 3 is available on record. Rejoinder has been filed.

(2.) THE petitioners who are 15 in number have filed this writ petition challenging the illegality of the impugned orders (Annexure 1 to 15) dated 16/17.8.1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer, Municipal Board, Ghazipur whereby the petitioners have been retired after attaining the age of 50 years and before 60 years by exercising his power under Fundamental Rule 56(C) of Financial Handbook part II to IV.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it has been stated that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the petitioners and other employees of Nagarpalika and by retiring the petitioners after the age of 50 years and below the age of 60 years it cannot be said to be illegal. However, in reply to the averments made in paragraph 5 and 6 to the writ petition wherein the Regulations framed under the Municipalities Act have been referred to it has not been replied effectively inasmuch as it has been stated that paragraph 5 of the writ petition needs no reply and paragraph 6 and 7 of the writ petition are incorrect and denied and that the Fundamental Rules are applicable in the case of the petitioners also. Apart of the aforesaid defence no other ground has been taken to justify the passing of the impugned orders.