IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :03.11.2025 Gurnam Singh … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate with Ms. Kritima Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, claim raised by the petitioner that he was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Storekeeper in a Sainik Rest House on 23.04.2010 by the order of Deputy Commissioner-cum-President Zila Sainik Board, U.T. Chandigarh on probation for a period of two years (Annexure A-2) and vide order dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure A-3) he got permanent hence, for all intent and purposes, the petitioner is the employee of the Chandigarh Administration and keeping in view of Notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration in April 2022 i.e. prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner, the retirement age was enhanced from 58 to 60 years, which fact has not been appreciated by the Tribunal in a correct perspective while passing the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) declining the prayer of the petitioner to continue in service upto the age of 60 years and therefore once, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Chandigarh Administration, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

4. The first question which arises is, whether the petitioner is a employee of U.T Chandigarh Administration or the Zila Sainik Board. The Zila Sainik Board is a separate entity from the Chandigarh Administration and any notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration governing its employees, does not applicable upon the Zila Sainik Board unless and until the same is adopted. Nothing has been brought on record that till the date of superannuation of the petitioner, the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Chandigarh Administration has been adopted by the Zila Sainik Board so as to grant the benefit of continuity of service up to the age of 60 years to the employees of Zila Sainik Board.

5. Further, it has also come on record that only after the petitioner had retired from service in the year 2024, the by-laws of the Zila Sainik Board were amended to increase the retirement age up to 60 years. These facts have gone unrebutted at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner even during the arguments before this Court hence, any enhancement of age after the date of retirement of the petitioner, will not confer upon him any right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed hereinbefore, as learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point to any perversity in the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal either on the basis of facts or law, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

JUDGE (VIKAS SURI)

November 03, 2025 JUDGE aarti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No