S. C. Mathur, A.C.J. - (1.) THE appellant, Who is working on a clerical post in the Judgeship Of Bareilly and is due to retire tomorrow (3lst August, 1993) after attaining the age of fifty eight years, approached this Court claiming that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age of sixty years. In support of this plea, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Girja Prasad Singh V. State of U. P. and others : Civil Misc. Writ No: 6896 of 1993 decided on 12th July, 1993. THE learned Single Judge did not accept the appellant's plea and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by that judgment, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
(2.) IT is not disputed that under statutory rules the appellant has to retire on attaining -the age of fifty eight years. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that clerks in various departments of the Government are identically situated and, therefore, there is no occasion to fix one age of retirement in one department or office and another age of retirement in another office or department. Regulation 21 of Chapter 3 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides sixty years as the age of retirement of clerical staff working in recognized High Schools and Intermediate Colleges. Rule 20 of the U. P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and conditions of Service of Clerks provides fifty eight years as the age r5f retirement of the clerical staff working in recognized Junior High Schools. In Girija Prasad Singh's case (supra), it was asserted before the learned Single Judge of this Court that rule 20 was discriminatory and the petitioner in that writ petition was entitled to continue upto the age of sixty years as prescribed in Regulation 21 referred to hereinabove. The learned Single Judge accepted the plea and directed that Girja Prasad Singh shall continue in service till he attained the age of sixty years. While upholding the claim of Girija Prasad Singh, the learned Single Judge has made some observations upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his plea that discrimination cannot be practised. IT has been observed : "IT may be mentioned that a clerical job is of routine nature which does not call for any special skill. Hence in the case of clerks there should not be two different age limits of retirement. What difference does it make whether a clerk is working in a High School or in a Junior High School ? The nature of function will be basically the same." From this observation, it would appear that the learned Single Judge was comparing the service conditions of clerks working in two categories of Educational Institutions and he found that basically there was no difference in the duties performed by them. It does not appear from the judgment whether any worthwhile distinction was pointed out on behalf of the respondents in the case and it also does not appear to have been pointed out that clerks working in higher institutions were discharging duties of more responsible character. Be that as it may the learned Single Judge was dealing with the cadre of clerks in Educational Institutions which in the opinion of the learned Single Judge were similarly situated. In the present case, there is no such identity. Accordingly. the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be applied to direct continuance of the appellant till he attains the age of sixty years. Another observation upon which strong reliance has been placed reads thus : 'Moreover, now when the longevity of people has risen and clerks found fit to work upto the age of 60 years, it would be unfair to retire them at the age of 58 years. After all a clerk does not have to do strenuous physical work like a. soldier or labourer. Hence there is no good reason to retire him at the age of 58 years.
(3.) THE service conditions, including the age of retirement, are fixed by the Administrative authorities on a consideration of various factors and longevity in age is only one of the factors. Another potent factor is the unemployment which a longer period of service may result into. In our country, there is large scale unemployment. If the age of retirement is enhanced by two years, it would mean lack of vacancies for two years and consequently lack of recruitment of fresh candidates for two years. This may, result in increase of unemployment. For the reasons stated therein, we with utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, do not subscribe to the view expressed by him. In the concluding paragraph of his judgment, the learned Single jugdge has recommended to the State Government to amend service rules in all department of the Government and raise the age of retirement of clerical and other Class III employees in all services upto sixty years, except where nature of work required special physical efforts. For the reasons recorded hereinabove we, with utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, do not subscribe to the said recommendation also.;