ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.M.B.Rana for the respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave or the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondent No.3 thorough video conference.

1. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya has tendered a draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft.

To be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith. As the controversy raised in this petition is in very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) hold and declare that petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as per Ofice Memorandum dated 30.5.1998 and the Board’s decision taken in the meeting of 16.10.2015 as reflected in Circular dated 18/19.3.2016, (B) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to retire the petitioner from service on her attaining the age of 58 years and continue her in service till she attains the age of 60 years in view of Office Memorandum dated 30.5.1998 and the Board’s decision taken in the meeting of 16.10.2015 as reflected in Circular dated 18/19.3.2016 and grant all other consequential benefits, or in the alternative (C) direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years and grant all other consequential benefits, and award the cost of the present petition, and (D) award the cost of the present petition, and (E) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from retiring the petitioner from service on her attainment of 58 years and to continue her in service till she attains 60 years of age on any terms and conditions that the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper, and/ or (F) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to consider the reply of proposal given by the Res. No. 2 on 16.1.2017 and take appropriate action regarding raising the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff of I.P.G.T.&R.A. of Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar from 58 years to 60 years forthwith in view of proposal dated 14.8.2017, and/ or (G) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The petitioner has mainly prayed for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as according to the petitioner who is discharging the duties of non-teaching staff with the respondent No.1-Institute was having the superannuation age of 58 years and not 60 years contrary to the Central Government Office Memorandum and Department Notification No.25012/2/97-Esst.(A) dated 13.05.1998 and 27.05.1998 which has amended F.R.56(a) to the effect that except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servants shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of

60 years.

5. Brief facts of the case are as under:

5.1.The respondent No.1 is an autonomous body receiving 100% grant from the Central Government. The petitioner served the respondent No.1 from 06.07.1987 till 30th September, 2017 as non-teaching staff member.

5.2.The respondent No.1 has time and again made proposal before the Central Government for increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years of non-teaching staff at par with teaching staff of the respondent No.1. The petitioner was also granted the benefit of sixth pay commission and increment as per the Central Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

5.3.The respondent No.1 did not get any approval or sanction