DR.DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.AND SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) The appellant in the special appeal has challenged a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27 November 2013. The appellant in the writ jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge sought a writ of certiorari setting aside a notice dated 13 September 2013 under which the appellant became due for superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 30 November 2013. The appellant sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him to continue in service until the age of 60. The learned Single Judge, following a judgment of the Division Bench in State of U.P. and others v. Pitamber (Special Appeal Defective No.687 of 2010 and Shoeb Ullah Khan v. State of U.P. & others (Writ Petitions No.51679 of 2009 and 29195 of 2011 decided on 4 July 2011) came to the conclusion that employees of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) were liable to retire on completing the age of 58 years. The Division Bench held that employees of the DRDA do not hold civil posts in the service of State and the fundamental rules 56 would not be applicable.
(2.) The learned Single Judge while following the earlier judgments of the Division Bench, however, directed that if the appellant has worked with the respondents even after attaining the age of 58, the salary which has been paid to him shall not be recovered but such payment shall not give rise to any other benefits.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on a decision which was taken in principle by the State Cabinet on 1 August 2013 by which it was resolved that the age of retirement of the employees of the autonomous bodies would be increased from 58 years to 60 years but at the same time stating that the individual departments would have to issue an appropriate instruction and that surplus posts would be abolished. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9 September 2013 in Shyam Narain Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.1256 of 2013). While taking note of the subsequent developments which had taken place, the Division Bench observed as follows: "From Annexure-II dated 1.8.2013, we find that the State Government has taken a decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of the employees of DRDA. In view of the such a decision, the claim of the appellant is required to be considered for extension of age of superannuation by the concerned authorities, even though, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment held that the age of superannuation should be 58 years of age. This judgment was delivered on 25th July, 2013 whereas the policy decision has been taken on 1.8.2013. Accordingly the above policy decision could not be taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on consideration of the subsequent development that has taken place and direct respondent No. 4 in consultation with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, may consider the claim of the appellant for continuance in service up to the age of 60 years and this exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order and a decision be taken in that regard." ;