IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4876 of 2009 BIHAR RAJYA ZILA PARISHAD DESI CHIKITSA SEWA SANGH & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 17/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The claim in this writ application is for a declaration that the petitioner No.2 is entitled to superannuation at the age of 62 years and not at the age of 60 years when he has been made to superannuate on 28.2.2009 at the age of 60. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as in accordance with Rule-6(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Jila Parishad (Service Condition) Rules, 1964 the service conditions applicable to the employees of the Jila Parishad are the same as that applicable to the State Government employees. Learned counsel for the respondent Jila Parishad does not dispute the submission that in pursuance of the aforesaid Rules after enhancement of the age of superannuation of Government employees from 58 to 60 years the Jila Parishad has adopted the same. Quite obviously, this was in pursuance of Rule-6(5). It is submitted that 3 days prior to the alleged superannuation of the petitioner that is on 25.2.2009, the State 2 Government has issued a statutory notification enhancing the age of retirement of medical officers in the State Government from 60 to 62 years with effect from 1.2.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent Jila Parishad next submits that the petitioner is not an employee of the State Government, but of the Jila Parishad. He is, however, unable to answer the issue that if it is the case of the Jila Parishad itself that under Rule-6(5) it has adopted the service conditions prescribed for State Government employees and consequent to the amendment therein enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 ,the Jila Parishad has adopted the same, why the similar treatment and procedure is not being followed now. Reliance is further placed on a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006(4) P.L.J.R. 308 ( Bihar Rajya Zila Parishad Karamchari Mahasangh and Anr (in8583) Ramjee Singh (in 7598) vs. State of Ors.) on a similar issue interpreting Rule-6(5) of the Jila Parishad Rules referred to above. Directions have been given for enhancing of age of superannuation in terms of the same consequent to enhancement of the age of superannuation of State Government employees. Learned counsel for the Jila Parishad does not dispute the correctness of the submission that the judgement as aforesaid has been acted upon by 3 enhancement of the age of superannuation of the employees of the Jila Parishad. If the Jila Parishad has accepted the interpretation of Rule-6(5) in the aforesaid judgement, all that is required is to dispose of this writ application and remit the same to the respondent Jila Parishad to consider the claim of the petitioner for the enhanced age of superannuation on 28.2.2011 in light of the judgement of this Court referred to above. Let such consideration be done and if the respondents be of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be accorded similar treatment, the respondent shall be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order only after furnishing materials to the petitioner on which it proposes to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to be accorded similar treatment in terms of the aforesaid judgement and after considering the cause shown by him pass such reasoned and speaking order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is clarified that the observations and directions in this writ application are confined to petitioner No.2 alone. The writ application stands disposed. KC (Navin Sinha, J.) 4