U. K. Dhaon and M. A. Khan, JJ. - (1.) THIS is an appeal arising out of the judgment and order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the learned single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) THE appellant had filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge claiming the relief of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to retire the appellant at the age of 58 years and also for quashing the decision dated 19.3.1999 reducing the age of retirement. According to the appellant, he is an ex-service man of the Army and retired as Hawaldar Clerk at the age of 44 years. Thereafter, the appellant was appointed on the post of Clerk in U. P. Sainik Nidhi on 25.9.1987. He was subsequently confirmed on the said post and at that time the age of retirement of the employees of U. P. Sainik Nidhi was 60 years. On 19.3.1999, the Managing Committee decided that the age of the employees of U. P. Sainik Nidhi will be 58 years in place of 60 years. The appellant was thus retired at the age of 58 years on 31.12.2000. Aggrieved by the said retirement, the appellant made a representation to the Secretary of U. P. Sainik Nidhi and prayed that his age of retirement should be 60 years. The opposite parties filed counter-affidavit and pleaded that U. P. Sainik Nidhi is a Charitable Trust, which is governed under the provisions of Charitable Endowment Act, 1890. The scheme of the administration of Sainik Nidhi and its employees are not directly under the control of the State Government or the Central Government. The State Government issued a Government order No. 1102 dated 5.11.1985 directing the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years and the appellant was subsequently retired at that age. The representation of the appellant was also decided by the Managing Committee, in which it was decided that the age of retirement has been reduced from 60 years to 58 years as per provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Charitable Endowment Act, 1890. The decision of the aforesaid Managing Committee is based on authority given to it in the Scheme of the administration. It has further been stated that the appointment of the appellant was temporary and he had always knowledge of his retirement age.
(3.) THE learned single Judge considered the submissions of both the parties and held that the service conditions of the appellant establish that the retirement age of the appellant was 58 years and thus the appellant was retired at the age of 58 years on 31.12.2000. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present special appeal has been filed. It has been argued by the appellant in person that the order of retirement of the appellant is unconstitutional and illegal and the appellant was supposed to retire at the age of 60 years as when he joined the service, the age of retirement was 60 years and the appellant was made to know that he was to retire after attaining the age of 60 years and it is a case of breach of promise. The petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mirja Khasim Ali Beg and another, AIR 1977 SC 747 ; M/s. Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1979 SC 621 and Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718.;