K. C. Bhargava, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 13.8.93 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 4932 (S/S) of 1993. the petitioner has come up in appeal.
(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that the petitioner has been made to retire with effect from 30.4.1993 at his attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years. This notice was received by the petitioner on 28.4.1993, a copy of which has been filed along with petition. THE petitioner was appointed in the Government Printing Press as Machine Sahayak. THE date of birth of the petitioner is noted as 12.4.1935 and the post of Machine Sahayak belongs to category 'D', i.e., class IV. In this way, the petitioner's age of retirement was 60 years and he should have been retired on 30.4.95. According to Fundamental Rule 56 (a) of the Financial Hand Book. Vol. II, Parts II to IV, the petitioner should have been retired at the age of 60 years. THE other employee Mohd. Yamin, who was also Machine Sahayak was retired after attaining the age of 60 years. The defence of the respondent State of U. P. is that the post of Machine Sahayak belongs to group 'C, i.e., Class III and the age of retirement of the petitioner is 58 years. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the petitioner inspite of the revision of pay scales and drawing basic pay of Rs. 1,320, still continues to have the status of class IV employee and should have been retired at the age of 60 years.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge after considering the relevant provisions of the Financial Hand Book, came to the conclusion that the age of retirement of the petitioner will be 58 years as he belongs to group 'C after the revision of the pay scales. THE present appeal is directed against this order. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.;