Anjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ - (1.) -Heard Sri S. K. Pundir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Sri M. K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to retire him before attaining the age of 60 years. He has also challenged notice dated 13.10.2006, issued by the Managing Director, U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., Lucknow thereby informing the date of retirement of the petitioner as 30.4.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that para 767 of the Manual of the U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. which compiles the rules and condition of service governing its employees, the age of retirement of employees of the U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. is specified as 58 years, which can be extended by the Board of Directors till 60 years. Further para 703 of this Manual provides that the Establishment rules applicable to the employees of the State Government shall also be applicable to the employees of the U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and since under Fundamental Rule 56 as applicable to the employees of the State Government, the age of retirement has been extended to 60 years, therefore the petitioner is also entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. He further submitted that he has also represented the matter to the respondents 2 and 3 vide letter dated 15.11.2006 to allow him to continue till 60 years after receiving impugned notice dated 13.10.2006, but he has been informed about the age of retirement as 30.4.2007 and that no change is permissible therein. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the contrary, submitted that under the existing rules as applicable to the employees of the U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., the age of retirement is 58 years and placed reliance on Rule 43 of the Service Rules of the employees of U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., which reads as under : "43. Superannuation.-The superannuation age in Corporation for every employee shall be 58 years."
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perusing the records, in our view, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted to him. Admittedly, under the existing rules applicable to the employees of the U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., the age of retirement is 58 years only. Moreover, para 703 of the Manual, which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner also does not help him for the reason, it provides that the Establishment rules applicable to the employees of the State Government, will generally be applicable to the employees of Bridge Corporation with certain amendments as may be notified by the Bureau of Public Enterprises for all public undertakings from time to time. It also provides that some changes have been made in these rules to meet out the requirement of working conditions in the Corporation. Thus a bare reading of para 703 of the aforesaid Manual shows that only the rules of the State Government on the subject over which otherwise provisions have not been made by the Corporation would apply and where the specific provisions have been made by the Corporation in respect of the employees, the said provisions will prevail. Admittedly under Regulation 43, which is said to have been framed and communicated to the employees of the Corporation vide Managing Director's letter dated 6.7.2006, the age of retirement of the employees of the U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. is only 58 years. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at this stage sought to rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik and others, (2006) 1 UPLBEC 20 : 2006 (1) AWC 524 (SC). However, we do not find any support to the petitioner under the said judgment, inasmuch as in respect of the employees of U. P. Jal Nigam, governed by U. P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulations, 1978, there was no age of retirement prescribed therein and on the contrary Regulation 31 specifically provides that in respect of all other matters, the Rules, Regulations and the Government orders applicable to other Government servants shall be applicable to those employees. In this view of the matter and in the light of the Regulation 31 of the aforesaid Regulations, the Apex Court held that so long as the provisions is not made by the U. P. Jal Nigam otherwise in its own Regulations, the age of retirement of the employees of U. P. Jal Nigam governed by the said Regulation, would be the same as applicable to the State Government employees. In the case in hand, Rule 43 specifically provides the age of retirement as 58 years, therefore the petitioner, in any way is not entitled to continue beyond that.;