S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 12 -9 -1984 (Annexure 1 to the petition), whereby the petitioner was notified that he would be attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 30 -9 -1984. The petitioner was in the service of the respondents as Lekhpal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THE facts according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari vice his father on 2nd February 1953 who died on 30 -1 -1953. His case further is that in view of the Government Order No. 4434/1 -B dated Lucknow, April 27, 1953 (Annexure 2 to the Suppl. Affidavit), he was absorbed as Lekhpal and as such by virtue of paragraphs (3) and (18), his age of retirement would be deemed to be 60 years as against 55 years, as it was then the age of retirement of Lekhpals. For ready reference, the relevant clauses of the Government order may be quoted below. (3) The Cadre of Lekhpals, would be made up as follows: (a) of all Patwaris who did not resign. (b) of the Patwaris who withdrew their resignations by March 4, 1953 before they were accepted. (c) of the Patwaris who withdrew their resignations before March 4, 1953 but after their acceptance. **** (18) The age of retirement would be 55 years subject to the collectors power to retire those who attain the age of 50 years or more and whose work and health is found unsatisfactory; provided that the age of retirement of those members who are absorbed in accordance with the conditions laid down under sub -para 3(a)(b) and (c) of para 2 shall be 60 years.
(3.) In the counter -affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner initially entered into the service as patwari but according to the respondents, the petitioner made a debut into the service on April 8, 1953 and not on 2nd February 1953 and as such, according to the stand taken in the counter -affidavit, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits flowing from Clause (18) of the Government Order referred to above prescribing 60 years as the age of superannuation for those members of the service who were absorbed in accordance with the conditions laid down in sub -para (3)(a)(b) and (c) of paragraph 2, on the other hand, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the entry made in Form No. G -3 (Agra -Avadh) paragraph 403, L.R. Manual (7) supervisors' register of Patwaris, Part I(A). In column No. 3, the petitioner's date of appointment was mentioned as 2 -2 -1953. In the counter -affidavit filed by Shyama Ram Gupta, Naib Tehsildar Ghazipur, it is admitted in paragraph 11 that the petitioner had made a representation for correction of entry in his service book. showing that he entered into the service on April 8, 1953. It is also admitted therein that some enquiry was held into the matter but ultimately no order was passed. However, the averments made in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit in which reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon entry in the Supervisor's Register of Patwaris Part I(A) referred to above, has not been disputed by the respondents In view of this, I have no option but to accept the entries made in the "Register" aforesaid which mentions 2nd of February 1953 as the date of appointment of the petitioner as Patwari. In this view of the matter, the petitioner, in terms of the Government Order itself, was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The impugned notice dated 18 -9 -1984 retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years with effect from 30th September, 1984 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner continued in the service upto the date of 60 years on the dint of an interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 3 -12 -1984, but according to the learned counsel, he was not paid his salary for the period. Since I have held that the age of superannuation in respect of the petitioner would be 60 years and not 58 years, he becomes entitled to get his emoluments as they were then admissible to him treating him to be in service upto the age of 60 years. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated 18 -9 -1984 is quashed. The respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and post retiral benefits, treating petitioner to be in service upto the age of 60 years.;