JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

The question raised in these appeals is can the High Court limit the rights of the respondent-petitioners to hold their posts to stated number of years on the premise, that if 60 years is the age of retirement then they cannot be continued for more than 44 years in service, as reducing 44 years from the maximum age of 60 would count as 16 years of age at the time of inception in service. The administrative exercise undertaken by the High Court that was undertaken in these peculiar circumstances have been narrated in the impugned judgement, but for a better appreciation, we may lay the background in which the validity of the impugned judgement is to be tested.

2. These two appeals arise out of two writ petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos.7755 of 2017 and 11412 of 2017 involving three petitioners in L.P.A. No.1143 of 2018 and one petitioner in L.P.A. No.1144 of 2018, yet the decision would affect some other similarly situate Class IV employees, as, at the time when the assessment was made, it affected 13 persons. A couple of them have chosen not to challenge the decision of the High Court, but there are other writ petitions which have been filed in which orders have been passed and contempt matters have also been instituted. The employees who were supposed to retire in 2017 and in 2018 and were put to notice about their retirement are 13 in number as per the chart indicated below:-

1. Sri Nand Kishore Prasad (L.P.A. No.1144/18)

2. Sri Suresh Mahto (CWJC No.9183/18)-(MJC No.4659/18)

3. Sri Panchu Ram (CWJC No.21274

4. Sri Raj Kumar

5. Sri Yogendra Ram

6. Sri Prabhu Shankar Panday](CWJC No.9183/18

7. Sri Mahendra Prasad] ( MJC No.4659/18)

8. Sri Wasi Ahmad

9. Sri Kapil Deo Roy] (LPA No.1143/18)

10. Sri Ishlok]

11. Sri Pramod Bihari

12. Sri Narayan Prasad (LPA No.1143/18)

13. Sri Ram Babu Ram (CWJC No.14753/18)

3. We had called upon the High Court to file an appropriate affidavit disclosing the status of the litigation in respect of these persons, including the respondent petitioners. The order passed by us on 2nd of April, 2019 is quoted hereinbelow:-

From the records of the writ petition, we find a chart appended at page 7 of the paper book that is a list of such Class IV employees who had joined the service in this High Court till 24th of July, 1998 and were proposed to be retired on the completion of 44 years of service in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

The present appeal has been preferred questioning the correctness of the impugned judgement of the learned Single Judge and we find that the present appeal is in respect of 3 of such employees and in the connected appeal, L.P.A. No.1144 of 2018, there is one person. Out of 13, 4 are before us.

We are not aware as to how and in what manner have the others been continued or allowed to continue either under a judicial order or under any administrative order of this Court. The said details be brought before us by way of an appropriate affidavit and also disclosing any litigation before this Court pending as on date in relation to these employments.

The Registrar General shall file his affidavit in this matter before this Court by Friday i.e. 5th of April, 2019.

Put up on 5th of April, 2019.”

4. In pursuance thereof, the affidavit of the Registrar General has been filed which contains the following averments:-

“3. That this supplementary affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order dated 2.4.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Court in the present appeal whereby the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct that details be brought before it by way of appropriate affidavit as to how and in what manner nine out of a total of thirteen Class IV employees, as per the chart appended at page No. 27 of C.W.J.C. No. 11412 of 2017, who were proposed to be retired on completion of 44 years of service in the years 2017 and 2018 have been continued or allowed to continue either under judicial order or any any other administrative order of the Hon’ble Court and also to disclose any litigation before th