The petition out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed on December 4, 1961 and was I.L.R. 1962 1 793.
This reduction in the age of retirement led to a writ petition by one Ram Autar Pandey in the High Court challenging the power of Government to reduce the age of retirement.
That petition was heard by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court and was dismissed on December 21, 1961 see Ram Autar Pandey v. State of U.P. 1 .
Thereupon there was an appeal to the Division Bench which was also dismissed on the same basis.
1961 in which case they were to retire at the age of 58 years.
This Schedule provided that Government servants who had on May 25, 1961 crossed the age of .57 years were to be retained .up to the date on which they attained the age of 58 years or up to December 31, 1961 whichever was earlier Government servants who had on May 25, 1961 crossed the age of 55 years but had number crossed the age of 57 years were to be retained up to December 31,1961 and Government servants, who would cross the age of 55 years between May 25, 1961 and December 30, 1961 were to be retained up to December 31, 1961.
This meant that the appellant would have retired on December 11, 1963.
Further a proviso was added in the rules relating to retirement in these terms Provided that a Government servant who had number retired oil or before June 17, 1957 but has subsequently attained the age of 55 years and has on May 25, 1961 number attained the age of 58 years shall, for the period he has companytinued to serve after attaining the age of years be deemed to have been retained in service beyond the date of companypulsory retirement, i.e., the age of 55 years within the meaning of the Rule aforesaid.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
309 of the Constitution.
Further as this change in the age of retirement would have resulted in immediate retirement of all government servants above the age of 55 years with companysequent dislocation of public service, another order was issued by the Governor on the same day directing that any government servant who had on or before the date of the order already been directed in pursuance of the proviso set out above to be retained beyond the age of companypulsory retirement or superannuation shall be so retained in accordance with the Schedule attached to the order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
But by a numberification dated November 27, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh hereinafter referred to as the Government raised the age of retirement or superannuation to 58 years.
249 of 1962.
In companysequence of this order, the appellant who had crossed the age of 55 rears before May 25, 1961 but had Pot crossed the age of 57 years was retired on December 31, 1961, though if the earlier rule of November 27, 1957 had companytinued lie would have retired on December 11, 1963.
The effect of this order was that all government servants who would have retired because of the change in the age of retirement after May 25, 1961 and before December 30, 1961 were retained in service up to December 31, 1961 except those who reached the age of 58 years before December II.
He was born on December 11, 1905 and was recruited in service in July 1933.
Then followed an application for leave to appeal to this Court which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
Therefore, numbermally he should have retired on December 11, 1960.
On May 25, 1961, the Government again reduced the age of retirement or superan nuation to 55 years by a numberification of that date issued under Art.
1053 of 1963.
B. Agarwala and 0.
P. Bajpal and K. K. Sinhal for the appellant.
At the time of his recruitment the age of retirement or superannuation for government servants of his class was 55 years.
The appellant was in the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh as Sub Registrar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad and arises in the following circum stances.
P. Rana, for the respondents.
