PURSHOTTAM VISHWANATH TRIVEDI Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD YAVATMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that he was confirmed before 31-12-1965 on account of which his age of superannuation should be 60 years, but he was retired from service with effect from 1-1-1988. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in the month of June 1990 seeking to challenge the retirement with effect from 1-1-1988.

(2.) WE have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in (Mrs. Susheela Sudhakar Pathak v. The Chief Executive Officer, Z. P. , Buldana and others) Writ Petition No. 510 of 1996, decided on 19th March, 1998, has submitted before us that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said judgment and that the petitioners retirement/superannuation should have been on completion of 60 years instead of 58 years when he was ordered to be superannuated.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 urged before us that the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, cannot be applied to the case of petitioner since in the case of petitioner, there was a fresh selection by the subordinate services selection board and after the said selection, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in terms of order dated 7th August, 1962 and the appointment was subject to final selection by the District Selection Board. It appears that the District Selection Board did not meet and the petitioner had retired. Learned A. G. P. also urged before us that it was altogether a new appointment of the petitioner and no benefit of any earlier service could be extended to the petitioner so as to attract the superannuation age of 60 years which was provided in case of employees who were confirmed prior to 31-12-1965. Therefore, both the learned Advocates for respondents have urged before us that the petitioner was not entitled to continue beyond 58 years and no interference is called for.