R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed as Lekhpal on 9 -4 -1953. It has further been claimed that he was later on promoted as Registrar Qanungo on which post he is working till date. He has filed this writ petition challenging the order of his retirement dated 23 -9 -1992 with effect from 31 -1 -1993.
(2.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Lekhpal being a post of Group 'D', is to retire at the age of 60 years under Fundamental Rule 56 and it is not open to retire him at the age of 58 years as a Registrar Qanungo. Learned Standing Counsel has disputed the above submission. In Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, Shyam Sunder Sharma v. Tahsildar, Rudrapur, Nainital, decided On February 1, 1993, this Court has held that Lekhpal is a post of Group 'C and he is to retire at the age of 58 years in accordance with Rule 31 of Lekhpal Service Rules 1958. For the reasons given in the case of Shyam Sunder Sharma (supra), this submission of the learned Counsel has got to be rejected.
(3.) PETITIONER who has been promoted as Registrar Qanungo, which is also a post of Group 'C' is liable to retire at the age of 58 years. It is not open to the petitioner to say that he should not be retired as Registrar Qanungo but should be retired as Lekhpal. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L.I.C. v. S.S. Srivastava : AIR 1987 SC 1527, wherein the similar contentions were rejected. Relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced below: It was however, contended on behalf of the 1st Respondent that since he had been recruited originally into the Class III post and he, would have had the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years if he had remained in that Class, the said benefit cannot be denied to him on his promotion to the Class I category, We do not find any merit in this contention too. When the 1st Respondent was promoted to the Class I post in 1963 the age of retirement of officers in the Class I post had been fixed at 58 years and was not different from the age of retirement of Class III employees, It was only in 1965 under the settlement the age of retirement of employees in Class HI and Class IV who joined service after September 1, 1956 was raised to ' 60 years. If he felt that the conditions of service of Class I Officers were likely to be prejudicial to him he could have refused the promotion offered to him. Having accepted the promotion along with the higher benefits flowing from it he cannot contend after several years that he had been prejudicially affected by the condition relating to the age of retirement applicable to Class I Officers appointed after September 1, 1956. That apart the higher emoluments and other perquisites to which Class I employees may be entitled to and the better conditions of work which are enjoyed by them substantially compensate the effect of the lowering of the age of retirement from 50 years to 58 years.;