S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) THE appellant was appointed on 1st July, 1976 under the State of Bihar and was posted as Group Officer, Special Branch, Chaibasa (within the territory of Jharkhand) since 10th May. 1997. After reorganisation of the State, he continued to hold the said post under the State of Jharkhand.
(2.) THE age of superannuation was 58 years for employees of State of Bihar prescribed under Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952. The said Code was adopted by the State of Jharkhand by Notification No. 3/M -7 -0/2001 -3821/Ranchi dated 19th October, 2001 and was subsequently amended by Resolution No. 7/BBP -56/2002 -Ka -5826/Ranchi dated 26th October. 2004. Age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years. On the other hand, it continued to be 58 years in the successor State of Bihar till successor State of Bihar amended Rule 73 and enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years by Resolution No. 3A -7 -Maha -01/2005 -1500 B(2) dated 23rd March, 2005. The date of birth of appellant being 2nd February, 1947, as per old Rule 73, he was to continue upto 58 years of age he. upto 28th February, 2005 but, in the meantime, age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years by the State of Jharkhand.
(3.) AN Advisory Committee recommended the name of appellant for allocation of his service under the State of Bihar along with some others. In the State of Bihar, the age of superannuation being 58 years, appellant challenged the recommendation of the Advisory Committee by filing a writ petition, being W.P. (S) No, 1318 of 2005. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Central Government issued order No. 3(Jha)/2005 dated 17th February, 2005 under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 and allocated his service under the State of Bihar. The appellant challenged the said order in the writ petition by filing a petition for amendment (LA. No. 800 of 2005). The case was taken up by learned Single Judge on 29th March, 2005 and the sme was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had retired from service on 28th February, 2005 on attaining the age of 58 years. The issue whether appellant was entitled to continue upto 60 years of age or not was not determined by the learned Single Judge.;