Back
1998 Supreme(All) 1141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju, J.
RAVINDRA PAL SINGH SOLANKI - Appellant
Versus
CHIEF SECRETARY, MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING, LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 32093 Of 1998
Decided On : 10/08/1998
S.N.SRIVASTAVA
The entitlement to the increased retirement age for State Government employees is contingent upon a specific notification by the State Government, and the court can make non-binding recommendations to the government.
Headnote:
RETIREMENT - State Government Employees - The court held that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the increase of age of retirement of Central Government employees unless there is a notification issued by the State Government raising the age of retirement of its employees to 60 years. The court made a recommendation to the State Government to increase the age of retirement of State Government employees to 60 years due to the increased longevity of people in modern times, but clarified that it should not be treated as a binding order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the U.P. Government, sought retirement at the age of 60 based on a notification for Central Government employees. The court rejected the contention, stating that unless there is a notification by the State Government raising the retirement age to 60, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit.
Finding of the Court:
The court recommended the State Government to increase the retirement age to 60 for State Government employees due to increased longevity, but clarified that it is not a binding order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a State Government employee, is entitled to retirement at the age of 60 based on a notification for Central Government employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the increased retirement age for Central Government employees unless there is a specific notification by the State Government raising the retirement age to 60.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the court made a non-binding recommendation to the State Government to increase the retirement age for State Government employees to 60.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is an employee of U. P. Government and he has prayed that he be retired on attaining the age of 60 years on the basis of the notification issued in respect of the employees of the Central Government. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention. Merely because the Central Government has raised the age of retirement of its employees to 60 years, it does not mean that the State Government employees are also entitled to continue till 60 years. Unless there is a notification issued by the State Government raising the age of retirement of its employees to 60 years, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the increase of age of retirement of Central Government employees. In my opinion, Article 16 of the Constitution has no application.
( 2 ) HOWEVER, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make a recommendation to the State Government to increase the age of the retirement of State Government employees upto 60 years because in modern times, the longevity of people has increased. The age of retirement of the employees of Central Government and the Armed Forces has been increased to 60 years. Hence. I see no reason why the age of retirement of U. P. Government employees should also not be increased to 60 years. This, however, is only a recommendation and it should not be treated as a binding order. It is upto the State Government to accept the recommendation or not.
( 3 ) THE petition is disposed of.
.
