Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri A.B. Singh and Sri Veerendra Singh, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present petition is being decided at this stage itself.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 14.2.2017 the instructions filed by Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are taken on record.

4. Present bunch of petitions contains two categories of petitions. One, where the employees of Fish Farmer Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the FFDA) are involved wherein though the Government Order dated 26.5.2015 was passed but actual relief of extension of age from 58 to 60 years as per the decision of the Cabinet of the State Government dated 1.8.2013 has already been granted by passing individual notifications on various dates in the year 2015. It was pointed out that in Writ Petition No. 27284 of 2015 (Gopesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. and others) arrears of salary of the petitioner has not been paid till date. Second category of petition is of the employees of District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the DRDA). This category is also covered from the policy decision dated 1.8.2013, however, the age was finally extended vide Government Order dated 10.10.2014 w.e.f. 30.9.2014, which is under challenge. In this category of petitions, in some of the petitions interim orders were granted by this Court staying the notice of retirement issued to the petitioners on different dates as per their date of birth and respondent authorities were directed to pay salary but in some of the petitions no interim orders were granted. There are certain cases where the petitioners have earlier approached this Court and their petitions were disposed of with an observations that their case shall also be covered by the decision to be taken, that in case, age is extended from 58 to 60 years the petitioners would also be entitled to the same benefit. One of such order dated 8.1.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 762 of 2014 (Manohar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) is quoted as under :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

Petitioner is working with the District Rural Development Agency, Jhansi. According to the earlier regulation, the employees of the District Rural Agency were to retire upon attaining the age of 58 years and subsequently, it appears that the Cabinet took a policy decision on 12.8.2013 to retire such employees upon completion of 60 years of age.

In Special Appeal No. 1956 of 2013, the Division Bench considering the judgment rendered in the case of Satish Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, has directed the authorities to decide the question with regard to the continuation of the petitioner up-to the age of 60 years.

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the judgment in Satish Kumar Sharma (supra) is applicable to the present controversy also, as such the writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment dated 18.12.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 1956 of 2013 and it is provided that the authorities will take a decision within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before them.

If within this period of two months the authority so decides to implement the Cabinet decision to allow the employees of Rural Development Agency to continue up-to the age of 60 years, the petitioner shall also be given the same benefit.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.” (emphasis supplied)

5. At the very outset, it was submitted that since the State Government by passing individual Government orders in the case of employees of FFDA has already extended the benefit of extension of ag