Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has made following prayer :

“a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the clause 3 of the impugned order dated 24.7.2012 (contained as Annexure 1 to the writ petition) wherein it is provided that this order will be effective with immediate effect and the last para of the order dated 26.7.2012 (contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition) wherein it is said that the order will be effective with immediate effect, with respect to the petitioners only.

b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties treat the petitioners as if he was in continuous service on 24.7.2012 ignoring the clause 3 of the order dated 24.7.2012 and the last para of the order dated 26.7.2012.

c. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Notice/office dated 19.8.2011 issued by the opposite party No. 4.

d. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 31.1.2014 and to pay him salary each and every month when it falls due and give all the consequential benefits to the petitioners.

d1. issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 16.4.2012 (contained as Annexure 5 to the writ petition) with respect to petitioners only.

e. issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

f. Allow the writ petition of the petitioners with cost.”

3. The petitioner has argued that he has been deliberately denied the benefit of order dated 24.7.2012. By this order age of retirement in the department has been enhanced from 58 to 60 years with prospective effect.The enhancement of retirement age of the petitioners was subject to the decision taken by the State Government, as per the orders dated 24/30.1.2012 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Now the State Government has taken a decision on the basis of the letter dated 29.4.2012 and its G.O. dated 20.12.2011. On these two dates the petitioners were in service hence the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the State Government but the State Government has denied the benefit of order dated 24.7.2012 to the petitioners by saying that the orders will be prospective in nature.

4. The matter relating to enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees of the Corporation from 58 to 60 years had been placed before the Board of Directors of the Corporation at Lucknow vide Resolution No. 3448, it was considered by the Board of Directors of the Corporation at Lucknow in its 168 meeting on 11.4.2008 and was duly approved by them. As such Corporation and as such petitioners were entitled to continue in services till they attain the age of 60 years.

5. Petitioner has further argued that in pursuance to the letter dated 20.12.2011, in U.P. Housing and Development Board, Jal Nigam, Bridge Corporation & other corporations retirement age has been enhanced but in the Department of the petitioner the same has not been given effect even after completion of all the formalities. In other corporations the benefit of enhancement of retirement age has been been given with retrospective effect say Handloom Corporation.

6. As per the date of birth of the petitioners, they would have attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2014, whereas the petitioners have been retired at the age of 58 years i.e. w.e.f. 31.1.2012 which is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the State Government has been pleased to grant approval to enhance the retirement age of the corporation’s employees f