Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) The only question which arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the age of superannuation of the petitioner would be 58 years or 60. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Group-D employee.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the State however has stated that there is a typographical mistake in Annexure 'C' to the writ application far as the date of superannuation is concerned. The correct date of superannuation of the petitioner would be 28.2.95 in place of 28.2.93.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the State however submits that keeping in view the fact that the Process Servers filed a writ application and by so order this Court directed that the duties of the Process Servers were ai per with those of the Seal Bailifs they should be given a scale of pay enjoyed by the Seal Bailifs. The Seal Bailifs enjoyed the scale of pay as admissible to Grade-C employees and then the age of retirement of Group-C employee would be 58 years. The petitioner in Paragraph 20 of the writ application has stated as follows:- "That your petitioner states that pursuant to the said Memorandum dated 10.4.1983, your petitioner who was a Group-D employee prior to introduction of 1981 ROPA Rules are who became Group-C employee pursuant to the Government order No. 7725 of dated 6.7.1989 shall retire from the Government Service on attaining the age of 60 years and not on attaining the age of 58 years and as such your petitioner will retire from the Government service on 28.2.1997 on attaining the age of 60 years".;