CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raise a grievance with respect to a common order dated 15.9.2006, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, wherein it has been held that the petitioners, the employees of the Zila Parishad in Bihar, have been prematurely retired without giving them the benefit of extension of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years with consequential direction. LPA No.3 of 2007 arises out of CWJC No.7598 of 2006, and the analogous LPA No.42 of 2007 is with respect to analogous CWJC No.8583 of 2005.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeals may be indicated. The State Government issued notification dated 24.3.2005, whereby it enhanced the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years with immediate effect. The employees of the Zila Parishad in Bihar also raised a demand that their cases cannot be ignored as a result of which the State Government in the Rural Development Department called upon the Deputy Development Commissioners-cum-Chief Executive Officers of Zila Parishads in Bihar to consider the question in the light of the financial position of the Zila Parishad under them. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Patna, addressed his communication dated 4.3.2006, informing the State Government that the Zila Parishad, Patna, has resolved that the retirement age of its employees may be raised from 58 to 60 years with effect from March 2005. The order was not implemented leading to the two writ petitions which have been allowed by the learned single Judge by a common order. Hence these appeals at the instance of the Zila Parishad, Patna.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We fail to understand as to how and in what manner the present appeals are maintainable in a situation where the appellant herein had passed a resolution that retirement age of the employees of Zila Parishad be enhanced from 58 to 60 years with effect from March 2005. The order of the learned single Judge does not adjudicate any issue and only seeks to implement the order dated 4.3.2006 (Annexure 6) of the appellant. In such a situation, we are convinced that these are most frivolous appeals and are not maintainable. Law is well settled that no person can maintain a lis or appeal unless he has a cause of action. Soon after conclusion of the hearing, we advised the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw the appeals, but he has refused to do so.