Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants/U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Sri Raj Kumar Singh and Sri C.B. Pandey learned counsel for opposite parties.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties all the special appeals are clubbed together and decided by a common judgment as the same are arising out of the judgment dated 29.5.2014 passed by learned single judge.

3. By means of present special appeals, appellants/U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.5.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7534 (SS) of 2012 (Naresh Kumar Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others) challenged in Special Appeal No. 543 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 5352 (SS) of 2012 (Mohd. Ahmad Khand and another v. State of U.P. and others) challenged in Special Appeal No. 544 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 6109 (SS) of 2012 (Yogendra Kumar Saxena and others v. State of U.P. and others) challenged in Special Appeal No. 545 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 5721 (SS) of 2012 (Mohammad Ahmad Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and others) challenged in Special Appeal No. 546 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 6046(SS) of 2012 (Sitaram Singh v. State of U.P. and others) challenged in Special Appeal No. 547 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 7551 (SS) of 2012 (Devendra Prasad Goswami v. State of U.P. and others) challenged in Special Appeal No. 548 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 6169 (SS) of 2012 (Shiv Veer Singh Bhadauriya and others v. State of U.P. and others) challenged in Special Appeal No. 549 of 2014. All the writ petition were allowed by learned Single Judge.

4. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants, in brief, submits that respondents/writ petitioners were working in Group-C post in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) and as per Regulation no 37 of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other Than Officers) Service, Regulation, 1981 (herein after referred as ‘Regulation,1981’), the age of retirement was 58 years. Keeping in view the age as provided under Regulation No. 37 of the Regulation 1981 notice in respect to retirement was served to respondents/writ petitioners stating therein they have to retire on the date mentioned therein after attaining the age of 58 years, some of them have challenged the notice by filing writ petitions. On 28.11.2001 a Government Notification was issued thereby amending the Fundamental Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, Contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part II-IV and enhancing the retirement age of Government servants from 58 to 60 years. So the employees working on Group-C posts in the Corporation had claimed that their retirement age may be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years.

5. Accordingly, Managing Director of the Corporation on 29.11.2001 written a letter to Secretary (Karmik Vighag) Government of U.P. to clarify the position whether the employees working on the post of Group-C in the Corporation are covered by the Government Notification dated 28.11.2001 or not? In the regard another letter was also written by the Managing Director of the Corporation to Principal Secretary (Transport) on 1.12.2001.

6. By letter/order dated 14.1.2002 the State Government has clarified the position that the notification dated 28.11.2001 in regard to enhancement of age of retirement of the Government servant from 58 to 60 years is not applicable on the employees working in the Corporation, so on 19.1.2002 General Manager of the Corporation had issued a Circular that the age of retirement of the employee working in the Corporation as per Regulation 37 of Regulation 1981 is 58 years.

7. Further, there were continuous requests from Public Undertaking/Corporations in respect to enhancement of age of its employees from 58 to 60 years, so the State Government constituted a Committee in the year 2009. The said committee had examined the matter in r