- (1.) The petitioner joined the Rationing Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 1-10-1946 as a clerk at Jhansi In due course he became the Supply Inspector. By an order dated 13th November, 1969, the District Magistrate, Jhansi, gave him a notice of compulsory retirement with effect from 13th February, 1970, when the petitioner was to attain the age of 55 years. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation against his compulsory retirement and by an order dated 2nd of January,. 1970, he was given an extension of one year expiring on 13-2-1971. On the expiry of one year the petitioner has again been retired. He is aggrieved and has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that under Fundamental Rule 56, the age of retirement of at government servant is 58 years and he cannot be compulsorily retired after attaining the age of 55 years, except in public interest and on certain other such grounds. According to him. during the time that he was on extension, there was no adverse entry against him and his work was highly satisfactory and in fact he was allowed to cross an efficiency bar during that period. As such the petitioner's retirement is arbitrary and roast be set aside.
(3.) There is no doubt that the normal retirement age of a government servant under Fundamental Rule 56 is 58 years. Bat he can be retired after attaining the age of 55 years in public interest, if his work has been found to be unsatisfactory and on such other grounds. An order of compulsory retirement cannot be passed arbitrarily. But in the instant case the situation is different. The petitioner had already been compulsorily retired by the order dated 13th November, 1969, and on his representation he was allowed one year's extension. A government servant, who has been awarded an extension after retirement, cannot claim further extension as a matter of right. The fact that his record of service has been good during extension period or that he has been allowed to cross the efficiency bar is wholly immaterial. He was, so to say, re-employed on a contract for one year and this Court cannot issue any writ or direction to compel the opposite parties to grant the petitioner a further extension. The considerations put forward by the learned Counsel would have been relevant, if he had filed a writ petition against the earlier order of retirement dated 13th November, 1969. But he submitted to that order and instead accepted one year's extension.;