- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 31-7-1995 whereby the petitioner was retired w. e. f. 31-7-1995 on his attain ing the age of 58 years.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record on the case. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being class IV employee cannot be retired before he attains the age of 60 years. On the other hand Mr. S. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner comes within the definition of the term "member of centralised services". Therefore, the provisions of Rule 46 (1) of the Rules known as U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi (Kendriya) Sewa Niyamawali, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are fully applicable which provide the age of retirement of the member of centralised services as 58 years. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly been retired on his attaining the age of 58 years.
(3.) SUB-rule (1) of Rule 46 of the Rules clearly provides that the age of retirement of the member of centralised services shall be 58 years. The said rules is reproduced below : From a reading of the aforesaid Rules it is apparent that the peti tioner is a member of the centralised service. The age of retirement of a member of the service under Rule 46 (1) is 58 years. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that his age of retirement, being a Chaukidar is 60 years cannot be accepted. He comes within the definition of member of centralis ed service, as he is a Chaukidar. Petitioner has already attained the age of 58 years. Therefore, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;