Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) THESE are 5 connected writ petitions in which the question raised is common, that is, whe ther the petitioners could be retired on attaining the age of 55 years under the provisions of Rule 56 of the U. P. Funda mental Rules. Sri Iqbal Narain Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as Sri Srivastava) is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 148 of 1968. He was working as a clerk in the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, Nawabganj, in the district of Barabanki in May 1966. On 3-5-1966 he received a communication from the Superintendent of the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, informing him that he had been placed under suspension by means of an order dated 3-5-1966. This was followed by a charge- sheet in which it was alleged that Sri Srivastava had demanded a sum of Rs. 2/- from Ram Sagar son of Sarju Prasad. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, respondent No. 2, issued a notice to Sri Srivastava calling upon him to show cause why the punishment of re moval from service be not awarded to him. Sri Srivastava submitted his reply and on 1-11-1966 the Deputy Commis sioner, Barabanki, passed an order re instating him on his post but made the following entry in his character roll: "Censured for demanding on 29-4-1966 Rs. 2/- from Ram Sagar son of Sarju Prasad for issue of copy of judgment in the case of Bharat v. Sarju and 2 others under Sections 323/506/424/397 I. P. C." Sri Srivastava appealed to the Commis sioner, Faizabad Division, who by means of the order dated 2-8-1967 allowed the appeal and ordered the expungement of the censure entry. During the pendency of Sri Srivastava's appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, considered the question of retention of Sri Srivastava in service as he had attained the age of 55 years and for that purpose called for a report from the Tehsildar. On 1-4-1967 the Deputy Commissioner passed an order that notice be issued to Sri Srivastava retiring him on attaining the age of 55 years. Sri Srivastava filed a representa tion before the State Government against the order compulsorily retiring him on attaining the age of 55 years. The State Government rejected the representation and the order of the Government was communicated to him on 21-10-1967. It is stated in the petition that earlier, that is in 1959, the question had arisen with re gard to the retention of Sri Srivastava in service and the Board of Revenue by its order No. XII- 215A/57 had directed that Sri Srivastava be permitted to continue in service until he had attained the age of 58 years. Sri Srivastava's case is that Rule 56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, so far as it gave the State Government the power to compulsorily retire a Gov ernment servant on his attaining the age of 55 years, is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in any case inasmuch as the Commis sioner allowed the appeal of Sri Srivastava the censure entry would not be deemed to exist, with the result that it could not be in public interest not to continue Sri Srivastava in service until he had attain ed the age of 58 years.
(2.) WRIT Petition No. 943 of 1969 has been filed by Trilok Chand. He was working as a confirmed overseer in the Irrigation Department of this State and was posted in the Ramganga River Pro ject, Kalagarh. On 10-9-1968 a notice was served upon him under the signa tures of the Chief Engineer retiring him from Government service with effect from 14-10-1969 on his attaining the age of 55 years. Trilok Chand made a re presentation which was recommended by the Executive Engineer. On 8-8-1969 a copy of the letter No. 5826/E-2/35 Misc./69 dated 25-6-1969 addressed to the Director, Ramganga River Project, Kalagarh, was served upon Trilok Chand in which it was stated that he (Trilokchand) may not be allowed to con tinue in service after he had attained the age of 55 years. The order of the Chief Engineer retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years and not allowing him to continue until he had attained the age of 58 years has been challenged in this petition. Writ Petition No. 979 of 1969 has been filed by B. P. Srivastava. He was working as an Accounts Officer (Gazetted) in the Co-operative Depart ment in December, 1956. According to his allegations he was taken seriously ill in the year 1965 and had to go on long leave. After recovery he joined his post on 14-7-1966 and worked continuously till 9-7-1969, but before that he had re ceived a notice under the signatures of the Secretary Co-operative Department informing him that he would be retired from service on the expiry of 3 months from the date of the receipt of notice under the provisions of Rule 56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules. By means of this petition the notice compulsorily re tiring Sri B. P. Srivastava is sought to be quashed.
(3.) WRIT Petition No. 1040 of 1969 has been filed by Achal Behari Lal (here inafter referred to as Sri Lai). He was appointed in the State service in the office of the Agriculture Engineer (Trac tors), Lucknow, by the Chief Agriculture Engineer, U. P. He has alleged that even though he is a confirmed employee of the State, increments and salary due to him have not been given to him and for the redress of that grievance he made a re presentation to the higher authorities which annoyed the Director of Agricul ture, U. P., the respondent No. 1. It is further alleged that due to this annoyance the petitioner has been retired under the provisions of Rule 56 of the U. P. Funda mental Rules on his attaining the age of 55 years by means of the order dated 11-8-1969 passed by the Director of Agri culture U. P. It is further alleged that there are many public servants in the office where Sri Lal was serving who have crossed the age of 55 years and yet have not been retired. The petitioner made a representation on 3- 10-69 and also submitted a reminder in respect of it on 23-10-69. He was, however, inform ed by the Joint Director Agriculture that the Government did not think it fit to revise the order of his (Sri Lai's) com pulsory retirement. Sri Lal has filed this petition on the grounds, firstly that R. 56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules is viola-tive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion of India, secondly that discrimina tion has been practised against him, and thirdly that the order compulsorily retir ing him is mala fide. He has prayed for the quashing of the order compulsorily retiring him.;