- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was ap pointed as work agent in the Public Works Department, in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 27-5-1960 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 55-65/ -. Subsequently, it is alleged that he was posted as Work Supervisor with effect from March 1974 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 330-495/.
(2.) SRI J. K. Tewari, learned counsel, holding brief of SRI Shashi Nandan, con tends that he continued in the said post of Work Supervisor and, therefore, by reason of Rule 56 (a) Proviso of Financial Hand Book the petitioner is eligible to continue till the age of 60 years on the basis of amendment incorporated on 8th July, 1987 in the said Rule. Sri Parihar learned Standing coun sel on the other hand contends that the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- in the year 1986 and he had retired on the said scale. Therefore he cannot claim to continue till the age of 60 years. Learned Standing counsel has relied on the relevant Rules and Circular governing the service of work charge employees. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various decisions, to which reference will be made at a later stage. Sri Tiwari, con tends that since the petitioner continued on the same post which was a Group 'd' post prior to 1985 even if the scale is revised or changed, the petitioner would still remain Class-IV employee, having been appointed prior to 5-11-1985 and, therefore, eligible to retire only on attain ment of the age of sixty years. Rule 56 (a) provides that all employees are to retire on attainment of 58 years of age but those persons who have been appointed prior to 5 -11-1985 and holding Group-D post, in that event he would be retiring on attain ment of 60 years of age. The said proviso to Rule 56 (a) is also qualified by explanation which provides that the above proviso will be applicable only in cases where there has been no change in the status or upgrada-tion after 27-2-1982.
(3.) THEREFORE, it is necessary in order to determine as to whether the proviso to Rule 56 (a) is applicable in the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner holds Group-D post in that event he would be eligible to retire on attainment of 60 years of age. Relying on the definition of Group-D post learned counsel for the petitioner con tends that if minimum of pay scale is less than Rs. 354/- in that event the person is to be treated as holding Group- D post. Ac cording to him prior to 5-11-1985 he was in the pay scale of Rs. 330-495/ -. THEREFORE, according to him he was holding the Post within the purview of Group-D post, namely, the basic pay of the petitioner then in the said scale was less than Rs. 354/. Learned Standing Counsel has relied on the 'work charge Establishment Rules' in which Chapter-10 provides for retirement, pension and gratuity. The said Chapter deals with the work charge employees. The notification printed in the said chapter is dated 11-5-1984. The said notification provides that, "no work charge employee shall remain in service, ordinarily after attaining the age of super annuation, as fixed for equivalent post in the regular establishment, but in some es tablishment it is noted that despite cross ing superannuating age some employee were continued in service. Therefore, it was decided that the services of such employees are to be terminated on the basis of prescribed age of superannuation for which categorisation of the employees have been prescribed. In Clause (1) it is provided that those employees who are placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 305-390/-would be retired at the age of sixty years and in Clause (2) it is provided that all other employees excepting in the scale of Rs. 305-390/- would be retiring at the age of 58 years. The petitioner being work charged employee is governed by the said rule. The petitioner was placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 330-495/- before 5-11-1985, which is an admitted case of the petitioner, in asmuch as he was placed in the said scale as has been stated in Para-3 of the writ petition in 1974. Therefore on 5-11-1982 the petitioner having not been in the Pay scale of Rs. 305-390/- he comes within Clause (2) of the said notification dated 5-11-1984. Since this notification is meant specifically for work charge employees specifying the scale, therefore, it cannot be said that by reason of the fact that the petitioner had been working as work su pervisor which is Group 'd' Post, he is eligible to retire on attaining the age of sixty years.;