Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the U.P. Jal Nigam.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court by means of judgment and order dated 2.8.2010 rendered in Special Appeal No. 1140 of 2010 (Allahabad) Sri Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. thr. Sec. Nagar Vikas Ltd. and Ors. which reads as under: Our attention is invited to the judgment dated 29th July, 2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, sitting at Lucknow, in Writ Petition No. 1595 (SB) of 2009 Dayanand Chakrawarty v. State of U.P. and Ors. and other petitions. The learned Bench in the said judgment has taken the view that the age of retirement of employees of the Jal Nigam will be sixty years for the reasons set out in the judgment. Nothing has been pointed out before us to take a different view from the view taken by the learned Bench. In the light of that, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 25.06.2010 is set aside. Considering the above, the petition also will have to be allowed, and is accordingly allowed. If the appellant has not attained the age of 60 years, he will be entitled to resume his work forthwith and paid emoluments accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in Writ Petition No. 36702 of 2010. I am in full agreement of the aforesaid order and the petitioner of this writ petition also will have to be allowed if he has not attained the age of 60 years, he will be entitled to resume his work forthwith and paid emoluments accordingly.
(3.) WITH the above observations, the petition is disposed of finally.;