IMPORTANT POINT
Employees of autonomous bodies like the DRDA cannot claim parity with state government employees regarding retirement benefits unless explicitly provided by law or policy, and changes in retirement age cannot be applied retroactively to those who have already retired.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Jaunpur, rejecting the petitioner’s claim to treat his age of superannuation as 60 years and extend him all benefits thereof. For the sake of brevity, the District Rural Development Agency shall be hereinafter be referred to as the ‘DRDA’.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk with the DRDA, Mirzapur in the year 1989. The petitioner says that he was retired from service on 31.12.2012 at the age of 58 years, instead of 60. He says that he was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, which is his age of superannuation and that he should be given all benefits determined on the basis of his age of superannuation being 60 years. The DRDA is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860[‘the Act of 1860’ for short], though entirely under the control of the State Government. According to the petitioner, by a circular dated 29.10.1983, service conditions of employees of the DRDA are to be the same as those of the State Government employees. Earlier, the age of retirement for Government employees was 58 years, and therefore, the same applied for the employees of the DRDA. Subsequently, the Government issued a notification dated 28.11.2001, raising the age of retirement for employees of the State Government to 60 years. An amendment in this regard was made to Fundamental Rule 56. By virtue of the Circular dated 17.03.1994, the employees of the DRDA would also superannuate at the age of 60 years at par with government servants. The petitioner claims parity in the age of retirement with government servants and their enhanced age of superannuation with effect from 28.11.2001. For the purpose, he has relied upon the Government Order dated 29.10.1983, besides the Circular dated 17.03.1994, both issued by the State Government. It is also the petitioner’s case that there are no service rules framed for the employees of the DRDA, and therefore, the executive instructions/circular issued on 17.03.1994 to maintain uniformity in the Establishment of the DRDA would entitle employees of the DRDA to be treated at par with the employees of the State Government in the matter of their age of retirement.

3. The petitioner was served with a notice of retirement with the Project Director, DRDA, Jaunpur, retiring him from the service with effect from 31.12.2012. The petitioner instituted Writ -A No. 122 of 2013 before the Court, challenging the retirement age of 58 years. This Court, by an order dated 13.01.2013, passed an interim order, permitting the petitioner to continue in service and paid salary till he reaches the age of 60 years. Later on, the petitioner’s writ petition, which came up for hearing on 25.07.2013 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner challenged the order dismissing his writ petition as aforesaid vide Special Appeal Defective No. 965 of 2013. This Special Appeal was disposed of in terms of an earlier order dated 09.09.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 1266 of 2013, where too, the appellant’s writ petition had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The order passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 965 of 2013 reads :

Although there is some delay in filing the appeal but learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the similar set of fact this court has disposed of Special Appeal No. 1266 of 2013 by giving direction to the respondent to consider the claim of appellant.

Copy of the judgment dated 9.9.2013 given in the special appeal, referred above, was shown to the court during course of argument.

Copy of the aforesaid order was also given to the learned Standing Counsel who has also perused the same.

On the facts as special appeal touching the same issue has already been disposed of, we also propose to dispose of this appeal in the same terms and directions as given in the order dated 9.9.2013, pa