Sabina, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 4.5.2006 whereby he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff in brief was that the Plaintiff had joined as Lower Division Clerk/ Meter Reader w.e.f. 25.5.1972. Plaintiff was a handicapped person to the extent of 70% by birth. Defendants had superannuated the Plaintiff on completion of 58 years of age w.e.f. 30.4.2006 whereas the age of retirement, in respect of physically handicapped employees, had been raised from 58 years to 60 years. The government letter No. 34/01/2006 -4951 dated 31.1.2006 had been adopted by Defendant No. 1 The Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred as DHBVNL) on 25.4.2006. The Plaintiff had further been retired in violation of the decision taken by the Board of Directors. Hence, the suit for declaration was filed by the Plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the fact that the Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants and had retired on 30.4.2006. It was averred that all the requisite benefits had already been given to the Plaintiff on his retirement. The Plaintiff had already submitted his papers qua retiral benefits. The representation submitted by the Plaintiff qua extension in service upto the age of 60 years had been considered but the Plaintiff was not legally entitled to get the said benefits as he was retired on 30.4.2006. Plaintiff had already been given three years extension in service on 5.2.2003. Plaintiff had superannuated on 30.4.2006 on attaining the age of 58 years. The letter by the State qua raising of the age of the date of superannuation of handicapped employees from 58 years to 60 years had been adopted by the Defendants on 25.4.2006 but the Plaintiff was retired on 30.4.2006.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration that the order dated 4.5.2006 vide which the service of Plaintiff were superannuated with effect from 30.4.2006 is illegal, unjustified and against the instruction issued by Government of Haryana? OPP 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be retained in service with effect from Ist May 2006 till attaining the age of 60 years or is in alternative for the wages for the period from 1.5.2006 till aged of 60 years alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual till actual payment? OPP 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a relief of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to reinstate the service of the Plaintiff with effect from 1.5.2006 and to release the arrears of pay from 1.5.2006 till reinstatement? OPP 4. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 5.WHETHER the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6.RELIEF . ;