rt ^, (2 .? In the Hon'ble Hish Court of Chhattissarh. W.P.No.../&&S^....2006 Petitioner Resnondents K. Alexander Muthlaly, aged 59 years, S/o Late Koshy Muthlaly, Retired Sub Engineer, * C.G. Housing Board, Durg, R7oMIG-C471Padmnabhpur, _^^/ ^....-^' Durg(C.G.) , ' \i^2^')'^^' ...-••' Versus e;W ^si^^JS ....•-"" 1. The StateGovt. oTC.G. Through Secretary, Ministry ofHousing & Environment Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan, RAIPUR (C.G.) /•2. C.G. Housing Board, Through The Comimssioner, H.O. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Housing Board, Through the Executive Engineer, Padmnabhpur, Durg (C.G.) Shri M'.P.Singh, aged 55 years Asstt.Engineer C.G.BB. Korba. Shri Javed Asgher Superintending Engineer C.G.H.B. RAIPUR. Writ Pedtion Under Articlesr 226/227 of The Constitution Of India for the issuance of WRIT in the nature of MANDAMUS certiorari, Prohibition and for other suitable writ or writs. order or orders. direction or directions. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU-R WRrTPETmONNo. 1885 of2006 PETITIONER : K.AlexanderMuthlaly. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ; The State Govt. ofC.G. & Others. %'RIT PETmON UNDER AR'HCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shti Somkant Vemia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. 4. Amit (Passed on 23rtlday of April, 2010) Leamed eouiisel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner workmg as Sub Engmeer in the respondent-Housing Board, retired fi-om service in September 2005 on attaining the age of 58 years, when other similarly situated employees ofthe State ofMadhya Pradesh retired on attaining tlie age of60 years. Shri Verma places his reliaiice onthe order dated31.10.2005 (Amiexure P/4) whereby the age ofretirement of class I, II and III employees have been increasedto 60 vears w.e./. 31.10.2005 and thereafter. Adiiuttedly, the petitioner retirsd in September, 2005. The petitioner is not entitled to fhe benefrt ofthe order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexiire P/4) as the same became effective from 31.10.2005. So far as other contention of the petitioner with regard to age of t-etireinent of the smiilarly situated employees in the State of Madhya Pradesh is concemed, wherein fhe employees have retired at the age of 60 years, the saiiie is without any basis as tlie age ofretu-ement ofan employee of a particular State is govemed under tlie niles and regulations of fhat State. If an employee of one State retires at a particular age, the same logic camiot be made applicable to the employees of ottier State. Tlie petition, bemg devoid ofmerit, is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. I Satish K. Agnihotri Judge