JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the age of superannuation of petitioners, who are Class-III and IV employees as 62 years in terms of the rules under which the present petitioners were appointed, in view of the fact that the present petitioners were appointed in the year 1972 and as per the Statutes of Ranchi University their age of retirement would be 62 years and they are appointed prior to the commencement of the Bihar State University Act, 1976.

3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioners were appointed initially in the year 1972 against the sanctioned vacant post after following due procedure of law and thereafter, their services were confirmed from the respective date of their joining by way of notification dated 22.02.1994 (Annexure-1) issued by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of their appointment, Bihar State University Act, 1976 was not incorporated and hence, they were guided by a Statute known as the Ranchi University Statutes. The other terms and conditions of service was determined by the said rules and Rule 223 specifically provides that the age of superannuation would be 62 years. However, the respondent-authorities have not considered the same and as such, the petitioner preferred representation before but till date no order has been passed and hence, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the service condition of the present petitioners cannot be changed in contravention to Statues of the Ranchi University prevalent at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that University Act was incorporated in the year 1976 and hence, the employees appointed prior to 1976 would not be guided by the Ranchi University Act. Learned counsel further argues that at the time of appointment, the present petitioners were guided by the Ranchi University Code which provides that the age of superannuation would be 62 years and subsequently, the same cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the employees. Learned counsel further argues that Section-67 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 should not affect the accrued right and benefit already available to the present petitioners under the Bihar State University Act, 1976 as well as services statutes under the Act which has been duly adopted by the State of Jharkhand and the same is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that from the date of promulgation of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the service conditions including the age of retirement of the University’s Employees are being guided by the provisions made in the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. After bifurcation of the States and creation of new State i.e. State of Jharkhand, the service conditions including the age of retirement of the University’s employees are guided by the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Learned counsel further argues that the State Government is empowered enough to make lawful and proper amendment in Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 as it is a State Act. Learned counsel further argues that the age of retirement of the non-teaching employees appointed prior to 1976, have been reduced from 62 years to 60 years in the year 2003 by enforcement of Jharkhand State University (Amendment) Act, 6 of 2003 and the petitioners are challenging the said provisions after lapse of more than 9 years, which is barred by limitation. Learned counsel accordingly submits that there is no merit in the instant writ application and the same is fit to be dismissed.

6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, lear