M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.2.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6924 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioner -respondent No. 1 has been allowed.
(2.) THE petitioner -respondent No. 1 filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 4904 dated 9.10.2006 issued under the signature of Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand by which the Government has stayed the operation of the decision taken by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (herein after referred to as the 'the Act') in its meeting dated 28.7.2006 by which the Board raised the age of superannuation of its officers and employees from 58 years to 60 years in pursuance of the resolution dated 26th October, 2004 of the State Government. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The Govt. of Jharkhand decided to increase the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years and to that effect, a memo dated 26th October, 2004 was issued by the Personal Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. The respondent - Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board held its meeting on 28.7.2006 and a decision was taken to increase the age of superannuation of the officers and employees of the Board from 58 years to 60 years in pursuance of the resolution dated 26th October, 2004 issued by the Govt. of Jharkhand. The decision of the respondent - Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board was implemented vide notification dated 28.8.2006. However, the decision of the Board was not approved by the State Government for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees of the Board from 58 years to 60 years. Consequently vide letter dated 9.10.2006 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, the said decision of the Board was stayed. The writ petitioner, who is the employee of the Board, challenged the said decision of the Govt. of Jharkhand by filing the aforementioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case and after hearing the parties held that the Govt. of Jharkhand has no authority to stay the operation of the Board's resolution and the same is being illegally done by the State Government. Accordingly, the order of the State Government was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. Hence, this appeal by the State of Jharkhand.
(3.) MR . S.B. Gadodia, learned Advocate General, submitted that the decision taken by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board in its meeting dated 28.7.2006 enhancing the age of superannuation of its officers and employees is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Advocate General submitted that as per Section 12 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the terms and conditions of services of the officers and employees of the Board shall be determined only by a regulation and such regulation shall take effect only when it is approved by the State Government. Learned Advocate General submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the stand taken by the appellant -State of Jharkhand.;