CWP No.11938 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11938 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Kidar Nath Meen, Lecturer in Punjabi ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Petitioner in person. Mr.Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner had been working as a Lecturer in the subject of Punjabi with the respondents. He has filed this writ petition primarily for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years and also restraining them from retiring him on 31.7.2010 on attaining the age of 58 years. To claim the above said- relief, the petitioner has relied upon a declaration made by the Ruling Party in the State at the time of election in its manifesto and further on the basis of recommendations made by a Cabinet Sub Committee (P-5). It is evidence from record that the said recommendation was never accepted by the Cabinet and accordingly not implemented. Upon notice, reply has been filed. A similar dispute as to whether this Court can interfere and direct the Government to revise the age of retirement, came up for consideration in CWP No.9665 of 2010 (Prof. S.S. Bindra and others v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 4.3.2011. There also, the claim of the petitioners was for enhancement of age from 60 years to 65 CWP No.11938 of 2010 (O&M) 2 years age. They had made that claim on the basis of letters addressed by the Central Government to the University Grants Commission. After discussing the rules on the subject and power of the Central Government to issue such like instructions, it was observed by this Court that it is the prerogative of the Government to enhance the age and directions cannot be issued in that regard. Otherwise also, we feel that on the basis of manifestos issued by the political parties, during elections, no directions can be issued to enforce the same. Case is squarely covered against the petitioner by ratio of judgment in the case of Professor S.S. Bindra (supra). Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE April 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE