HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1416 (S/S) of 2004 Khoob Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Kumar Singh R/o B-5, Old Colony, Kalagarh, Distt. Pauri Garhwal …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel for the respondents/State. Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for challenging the legality of the impugned order dated 20/11/2001 passed by the respondents by which it was directed that the petitioner would be retiring on 31/12/2001 at the age of 58 years, i.e. the age of the supernuation. 2. The petitioner was a work charge employee in the Irrigation Deptt., State of U.P. and at the time of the creation of the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), the petitioner was working on the post of work Charge employee in the State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned notice stating that in terms of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Act, 1946), he would have been retired at the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years. The said order was challenged only on that ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner further alleged that the impugned order is illegal as it is against the Government Order dated 05/11/1985 by which the petitioner should have retired after attaining the age of 60 years not 58 years. 2 3. The respondents/State has filed the counter affidavit alleging therein that the petitioner was appointed in the Work Charge Establishment in the year 1977. The petitioner at the time of creation of the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) was within the territory of this State. It was further alleged that the petitioner has rightly been superannuated at the age of 58 years. It was also alleged that the notification issued in the year 1985 is applicable to the regular government employees and not to the Work Charge Employees of the Establishment. It was further alleged that the Standing Order Act, 1946 is not applicable to the employees of the Irrigation Deptt. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The controversy raised in this petition has been resolved by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 18/04/1994 in the case of Puran Singh Thapa Vs. State of U.P. and others in Special Appeal No. 238 of 1994. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court squarely covers the controversy of this case. The said judgment was pronounced in the year 1994 prior to the creation of this Court and it has binding effect over this Court. As the controversy raised in this petition is similar to the controversy resolved by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Puran Singh Thapa (Supra), as such, this petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. 6. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2002 the Irrigation Deptt. had issued the order by which the supernuation age has been substituted from 58 years to 60 years and the order was 3 made effective w.e.f. 01/06/2002. The contents of the order are as under:- “dk;kZy; eq[; vfHk;ark flapkbZ foHkkx] mRrjkpay] gY}kuhA la[;k &Mh&478@lhM ,u@Mcyw&1@fnukad 29 twu 2002 fo"k; & dk;Z izHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa dh vf/ko"kZrk lsokfuo`fRr vk;q 58 o"kZ ds LFkku ij 60 o"kZ djus ds laca/k esaA v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark -----------------------------------------------e.My] gY}kuhA ============================================== mijksDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa eq[; vfHk;ark ,oa foHkkxk?;{k flapkbZ foHkkx mRrjkapy nsgjknwu ds oS;fDrd lgk;d Jh vkj0ds0 HkVukxj us fnukad 29-06-2002 dks nwjHkk"k ij lwfpr fd;k fd eq[; vfHk;ark ,oa foHkkxk?;{k flapkbZ foHkkx mRrjkapy nsgjknwu ds dk;kZy; Kki la[;k &2887@eq0v0@fl0fo0@dkfeZd @MCyw&3@th fnukad 29-06-02 }kjk dk;Z izHkkfjr vf/k"Bku ds deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fRr dh vk;q 50 o"kZ ds LFkku ij 60 o"kZ fd;s tkus ds vkns’k fuxZr dj fn;s x;s gSA ;g vkns’k fnukad 01-06-02 ls ykxw gksxsaA mijksDrkuqlkj lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gSA mijksDr vkns’kksa dh izfr izkIr gksus ij vyx ls izsf"kr dj nh tk;sxhA vf/k’kklh vfHk;ark &l& d`rs eq[; vfHk;ark &mRrj& la[;k & Mh &1&lhbZ,u@fnukad ==================== mijksDr dh izfrfyfi eq[; vfHk;ark ,oa foHkkxk?;{k &dkfeZd vuqHkkx& flapkbZ foHkkx mRrjkapy nsgjknwu dks lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA vf/k’kklh vfHk;ark &l& d`rs eq[; vfHk;ark &mRrj& ” 7. Perusal of the order clearly reveals that this order has not been passed after the retirement of the petitioner/those employees who were working on the date of commencement of the order, i.e. 29.06.2002. The benefit of the said notification can only be granted to the petitioner. According to the impugned order, the petitioner has already retired on 31/12/2001 prior to the enforcement of the said notification, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the said notification. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) 16th September, 2009 Shiv 4