WP(C) 2640/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. AS Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R Ali, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H Rahman, learned State counsel, Assam appearing for the resp ondent No. 1. The petitioner having challenged the decision contained in the letter dated 29.0 5.2009 of the Project Engineer, Jorhat Unit of the respondent-Corporation to ret ire him from service thereof on the expiry of 31.07.2009, this Court while issui ng notice in the instant proceeding on 03.07.2009, had permitted him to cause pe rsonal service on the respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4. This was in addition to the step s required of him for service on them by registered post with A/D. The process in this regard, which was taken through the Registry of this Court, reveals that the notice, accordingly, was served on these respondents on 15.07.2009. As the notice, which is in a prescribed form mentioned in clear terms that the respond ents were to appear in the instant proceeding within 14 days from the date of se rvice thereof, the present petition, though, listed in between, having regard to the exigencies of the situation, were adjourned twice awaiting a response from them and has eventually been fixed today i.e. 29.07.2009. None, however, appear s on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, though, served with the notice of the proceeding. In this background, having regard to the deadline set for the retirement of the petitioner, this Court in the interest of justice, has taken up the instant peti tion for adjudication on merits. Briefly, stated the petitioner’s pleaded case, is that he was appointed as a Wor k Charged Section Assistant on 23.06.1987 by the Managing Director, Assam Police Housing Corporation Ltd. Ulubari and was posted under the Project Engineer of t he said establishment at its Jorhat Unit and has been functioning as such since then till date without any break. While the matter rested at that, by the impug ned letter/communication dated 29.05.2009, he having been intimated that his sup erannuation from service would be effected on the expiry of 31.07.2009, he submi tted a representation on 20.06.2009 before the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation contending, inter alia that as in terms of the Assam Government Notification No. EPC.26/2007/12 dated 20.11.2007, the retirement age of Governm ent employees had been enhanced to 60 years, his superannuation, accordingly, wo uld be in the year 2011. According to the petitioner, this representation has r emained unresponded as on date. Being exasperated and apprehensive, he is befor e this Court. The averments, which are supported by an affidavit, have remained unrefuted in absence of any counter by the respondents. Mr. Choudhury has urged that in the attending facts and circumstances an appropr iate writ and/or direction ought to be issued to the respondents to retain the p etitioner in servicetill he attains the age of 60 years in terms of the aforemen tioned Government notification. The learned Senior counsel has contended that t he Corporation is an instrumentality of the State for all intents and purposes a nd, therefore, the retirement age of Government servants ought to be applied for its employees as well and therefore, the impugned decision to retire the petiti oner from service at the age of 58 years is, per se, illegal, arbitrary and ille gal. Mr. Choudhury, on instructions has pleaded that as a matter of fact many s imilarly situated employees of the Corporation have been allowed to continue in service for 60 years and on that count as well, the impugned decision is discrim inatory. Mr. Rahman, learned State counsel has submitted in response that as the decision impugned is one by the respondent-Corporation, he in the present factual premis e would refrain from making any comment thereon. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, I am of the view that in the exceptional fact situation as obtains in the instant proceeding , it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to forthwith take a final decision with regard to the date of retirement of the petitioner. This is called for in view of the enhancement of the retirement age of Government em ployees to 60 years, which the petitioner asserts, has been adopted by the Corpo ration. In the face of the sworn statements made in the petition, the contentio n raised on behalf of the petitioner, against his proposed retirement at the age of 58 years cannot be lightly brushed aside. In the above view of the matter, the petition stands closed with a direction to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Assam Police Housing Corporation Limited, Re habiari, Assam, to take a decision on this issue before 31.07.2009. If in any c ase, the same is not possible in the considered opinion of this Court, the imple mentation of the impugned decision should be deferred, till a determination is m ade in this regard. While making this order, this Court is well aware that in s ituations of the present nature normally no interim order should be passed which may have the effect of retaining an incumbent in service after the proposed dat e of retirement. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case a s well as the conspicuous indifference of the respondent-Corporation posed to th e instant proceeding, this Court in the interest of justice, considers it expedi ent to adopt the above view. The petitioner would submit a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Assam Police Housing Corporation Ltd . Rehabari, immediately. Needless to say, the decision so taken, should be communicated to the petitioner in writing forthwith. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No cost s.