SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(All) 1141

M.KATJU
RAVINDRA PAL SINGH SOLANKI – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF SECRETARY, MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING, LUCKNOW – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.N.SRIVASTAVA

M. KATJU, J.

( 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




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top