CHANDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. This petition is directed against a notice dated 10.9.2008 issued by the respondent No. 2 retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Statistician in a project of the State Government in the Office of the District Cane Officer, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad on 29th November 1975. Subsequently he was promoted as Statistical Assistant on 24.6.1993. However, the Project, in which the petitioner was appointed by the State Government, was scrapped vide Government Order dated 7.4.1998 and all the employees were retrenched with the stipulation that they will be absorbed on equivalent posts in the Cane Department and till then they would continue to draw their salary from the sugar account. The State Government enhanced the age of the Government employees from 58 to 60 years through a Government Order dated 28.11.2001 and the Cane Commissioner followed it through his order dated 29.6.2005.

(3.) The petitioner and five others, who were holding group I posts and the remaining employees of the erstwhile project, continued to work in the cane department but were drawing their salary from the sugar account of the Government. However, 72 Cane Development Inspectors, who were also working in the Statistical Project like the petitioner, were absorbed as Cane Development Inspector in the Cane Department with the approval of the Public Service Commission on 1.6.2006 on the basis of the approval dated 23rd March 2006. In fact all 108 employees of the Project were absorbed on different posts in the Cane Department. But the Group-I employees, were not absorbed as no action was taken despite the recommendation of the Cane Commissioner through his letters dated 26.3.2007, 19.6.2007, 7.12.2007 and 3.1.2008 sent to the State Government. In fact the Deputy Cane Commissioner wrote a letter to the Cane Commissioner dated 10.10.2008 informing him that the petitioner would be reaching his superannuation age of 58 years and, therefore, he may be absorbed before the said date. However, the State Government did not move in the matter and subsequently the Cane Commissioner issued a notice dated 10.9.2008 to the petitioner that he would stand retired on 31st of May 2009 having attaining the age of 58 years. As the respondents were not taking any effective action, the petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition for quashing the retirement notice on the ground that he is bound to be absorbed in the Cane Department where the retiring age has already been increased to 60 years. A Single Judge of this Court considering the entire facts, passed the following order on 16th December 2008: