ABUATHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order dated 26. 10. 98 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4716/98 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the State Government had enhanced the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. Consequently, the State Enterprises Department of Rajasthan had also issued a circular on 30. 6. 98 directing the State Public Undertaking to adopt the government decision, but the respondent No. 3 has not given effect to the order issued by the Government, and State Enterprises Department whereas the other Corporations/boards have issued the orders enhancing the retirement age of its employee from 58 years to 60 years in confirmity with the orders issued by the State Government. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Agriculture Department on 2. 8. 61 from where he was shifted to Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and thereafter to Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation. Being the State Government employee he is entitled for the benefit of enhancement in superannuation age like other government employees. Moreover, when other Corporation/board have taken decision in pursuance of State Enterprises Department Circular, the respondent No. 3 should have also taken the decision for enhancement of superannuation age of the petitioner along with the other employees of the corporation. THErefore, the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 24. 8. 98 retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. THErefore, the order dated 24. 8. 98 be quashed and he should be allowed to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.

(3.) WE agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that no mandatory directions have been issued by the State Enterprises Department to enhance the age of the employees of Boards and Corporations. Similarly, the Court could not issue directions to an autonomous body to frame or regulate the service conditions of its employees in a particular manner. Respondent No. 3 has not given benefit of two years in retirement age to any of its employees. Therefore, no question of discrimination arises. Employees of Corporation cannot be compared or equated with the employees of the other Corporations. If a particular Corporation has given benefit to its employees the other Corporation or Board are not bound to enhance the age in the light of the directions issued by the State Enterprises Department. During arguments we have been informed that the State Government has also withdrawn its notification by which the superannuation age of its employees was enhanced from 58 to 60 years. Therefore, we found no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. .