CHANDRADEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) SHORN of other details the basic fact is that the petitioner entered into service as is evident from Annexure -2 under the Scooter Project which was a unit of Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. The fate of this project is known to all but the petitioner came to be accommodated by being sent on deputation by the so -called Corporation as an Assistant in C.D.P. O. Project as would be evident from some of the office orders passed in this regard. When the petitioner reached the age of 58 years he was made to superannuate from the said post. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order in the present writ application. His present contention is that he should have been permitted to continue in service like other employees of the State Government till he reached the age of 60 years based on a notification dated 24.3.2005 annexed in Annexure -1. There is no dispute over the fact that the petitioner is not a State Government employee. He was only on deputation to the State Government in the Department of Welfare. If the respondents therefore retired the petitioner at the age of 58 years they committed no wrong prima facie.

(3.) THERE is another dimension to the litigation and some recent development in this regard required to be taken note of. The question of applicability of enhanced age of retirement to the present Corporation was an issue in at least two writ applications, one of them CWJC No. 8456 of 2005 and the other CWJC No. 10107 of 2008. A Bench of this Court based on the ratio decided in the case of Lala Nand Kumar & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. alongwith analogous cases reported in 2008(1) PLJR 579 has held that even employees of this Corporation would be entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of retirement to 60 years. The decision in question referred to above are recent developments only in the year, 2008. It is because of the interpretation given by the High Court that the benefit of enhanced age of retirement would be available to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality if the petitioner was made to retire at the age of 58 years by the department where he was sent on deputation. It is clarified that since the petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and he would now be entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years.