GOPALJEE SAHAY Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner of Gopaljee Sahay V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 4220 of 1999 has preferred this appeal in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.9.1999, whereby the action of the respondent authorities in varying the terms and conditions relating to superannuation, and the consequent retirement of the petitioner after completion of 37 years of service or 58 years of age, whichever is earlier, has been upheld. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition.

(2.) THE basic facts for the disposal of the appeal are not in dispute and may be briefly indicated. The petitioner 'sdate of birth is 24.12.1942. He became an Engineering Graduate from the Patna Engineering College in 1961. He had joined the services of the Bihar Government as Engineer Assistant/Technical Assistant in P.W.D. department. In response to advertisement dated 23.7.1961 (Annexure -1) of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board ' ), the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). According to the advertisement, the candidates beyond the age of 28 years as on 1.1.1961, were ineligible to apply, but no lower age limit for the applicant was indicated. The petitioner was appointed and joined the services of the Board on 11.6.1962, when he was 19 years and 6 months of age. The Board had then not framed its own Regulations prescribing the age of superannuation and had Mutatis Mutandis adopted the Bihar Government Service Rules/Code. Accordingly 55 years was the age of superannuation for the category of employees of the petitioner in the Board.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent Board has supported the impugned action. He submits that no discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner. The Assistant Engineer and the Engineer Assistant belong to two different categories, whose minimum age of entry into service was different, and the impugned clause in the order dated 6.12.1997 (Annenxure -4) has been inserted which has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. They come from two different sources and are dissimilarly circumstanced. In any case, no employee can exceed 58 years of age. He relies on the following reported judgments: