- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Stand ing Counsel and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10-9-98 whereby the petitioner is being retired on his attaining the age of 58 years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee and the age of retire ment of Class IV employees is 60 years, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to retire the petitioner from service on his attaining the age of 58 years. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was not Class IV employee but he was Class III employee. It was stated that U. P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Rules, 1978 were amender in the year 1989 with prospective effect i. e from 10th of November, 1981. The status of the post held by the petitioner was charged. The designation of the post after the amendment of the said rules was Panchayat Adhikari. He was not a Class IV employee, therefore, he was rightly retired from service1 on attaining the age of 58 years. He has referred to and relied upon the aforesaid rules. The amended rules read as under: "the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ad hikari Service is a non- Gazetted Service Com prising Group 'c posts. (g) 'service' means the Uttar Pradesh 'gram Panchayat Adhikari' Service'. " The said rules have come into force with effect from 10th of November, 1981. The petitioner by means of the amend ment application has also challenged the validity of the said rules, on the ground that same were discriminatory. From the material which has been placed on the record, the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that petitioner was holding the Class IV post. Even it has not been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was being paid same salary which is payable to a Class IV employee. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India reasonable classification is not prohibited. Classification of Government employees in different groups, for the purposes of fixing the age of retirement is valid. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in LIC v. 5. 5. Srivastava, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1527 and B. S. Yadav and another v. The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1706. Petitioner being the member of U. P Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service and was holding Group 'c' post, his age of retirement being 58 years, therefore, there is no question of discrimination in any manner.
(3.) IN view of the said facts this peti tion has got no merit, the same fails and is dismissed in limine. Writ Petition dismissed. .;