RAKESH TIWARI,J. - (1.) THIS petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 17/18.1 1. 1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner was informed that he would retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.1998. The petitioner was class IV (Group-D) employee working in the Office of Executive Engineer Lok Nirman Vibhag District Bulandshahar. He was retired by the impugned order 18.11.1998 on attaining the age of 58 years. The date of birth recorded in his service book was 30.12.1940. By Government Order dated 28.7.1987 U.P. Fundamental Rules were amended. The amendment, was introduced in the U.P. Fundamental First Amendment Rule, 1987 and on that basis Rule 56(i) was amended which provides that Group-D employees appointed before 1985 are to retire from service on the attaining the age of 60 years. The amended G.O. dated 28th July, 1987 is as under: @Hindi@
(2.) THIS amended G.O. applies to a regular permanent employee appointed on Group-D post prior 5th November, 1985. The petitioner has filed photocopy of service book issued from the office of the respondents under the signatures of Assistant Engineer on 30.4.1988 in which the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 45 years as on 30.12.1985. As per certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer and his date of birth was 30.12.1940. It is also apparent from the perusal of the Photostat copy for the service book that the petitioner's pay fixation was done under the Superintending Engineer's circular letter No. 6824/EB-51.84 dated 17.1.1985. The pay was fixed on 1.1.1984 and was countersigned by the Assistant Engineer of P.W.D. The petitioner claims that he was working as Beldar (Group D) employee much before 1.1.1984 and in these circumstances his pay was fixed. He further alleges that it means that he was permanently working as Group D employee in the department of the respondents much before 1.1. 1984.
(3.) THE last contention of the petitioner is that he is an illiterate person and can hardly put his signature. He does not have knowledge about the conditions of service in his appointment letter, which has been appended as Annexure-CA-1 issued on 1 1.3.1988. From the appointment letter of the petitioner Annexure-CA-1 it appears that he was appointed on temporary basis. Clause VI of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter was that he was appointed on temporary post. The appointment letter is as under : @Hindi@;