- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, with the consent of parties' Counsel, I proceed to decide both the writ petitions finally by a present common judgment.
(2.) PETITIONER of Writ Petition No. 4216 (SS) of 2005 was initially appointed on the post of Junior Clerk/typist and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II in the U. P. Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Limited and petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4711 (SS) of 2005 has been working as Assistant Manager in the U. P. Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Limited, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the grievance that they are entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that for Government employees, in pursuance to provision contained in the Financial Handbook, the age of superannuation is 60 years. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that in Para 56 of the amended Financial Handbook, the age of superannuation of Government employees has been enhanced to 60 years.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further proceeded to submits that under Rule framed for the employees of the U. P. Schedule Caste Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. (in short hereinafter referred as Corporation) namely; Service Rules for Employees of U. P. Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. , Lucknow 1983-84 (in short hereinafter referred as the Rule), the age of superannuation has been made at par with the U. P. State Government employees. For convenience Rule 25 of the Rule is reproduced as under : "discharge on superannuation.- The age of superannuation will be the same as is prescribed by the U. P. State Government for its employees from time to time. An employee of the Corporation shall be allowed the discretion to retire voluntarily after completing 20 years of continuous service or attaining the age of 50 years whichever is later. " On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that Rule referred hereinabove lacks statutory force and it has not been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. However, it has been admitted that service rule has been framed and approved by the Board of the Corporation in question. Once it has been admitted that the age of superannuation of Government employees is 60 years under Rule 25 referred hereinabove the age of superannuation of the employees of the corporation in question shall be at par with the Government employees then there is no justification on the part of respondents to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years. The Government order dated 25- 7-2002 provides that age of superannuation of the employees of the Corporation shall be same as well as existing prior to enhancement of age of superannuation of the Government employees. The Government order dated 25-7-2002 seems to be in contravention of provisions contained in the Financial Handbook.;