KUSUM LATA AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was serving as Senior Assistant, the third respondent, Bikaner Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Bikaner, upon achieving the age of superannuation of 58 years, was retired from the services on 31.05.2013. Later on, the respondent/employer took a decision vide Annexure -7 dated 25.07.2014, which decision was to become effective from that date only and the retirement age of its employee was increased from 58 years to 60 years.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 26.08.2014 with the following prayers: -

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the third respondent vide Annex. 7 dated 25.07.2014 increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, cannot be given any retrospective effect qua the present petitioner. The petitioner admittedly retired from the services on 31.05.2013 as per the then policy and the superannuation age of 58 years adopted by the third respondent Dairy has been increased later on, much after the retirement of the petitioner vide Annex. 7 only on 25.07.2014, which does not in turn give any retrospective effect to its decision by the employer Dairy. No such retrospectivity can otherwise also be inferred in the said Resolution. Merely because the petitioner has not yet achieved the age of 60 years by now, and had he been in the service at the time of issuance of order (Annex. 7) dated 25.07.2014, naturally he would also be entitled to the same benefit of superannuation age of 60 years, but having retired from the services much before the issuance of the order dated 25.07.2014, no reinstatement qua him on the basis of this decision increasing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years, could be given to the petitioner.