IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3610 of 2002 1. LAXMAN MAHTO 2. BRIJNANDAN RAM-----PETITIONERS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate & Sanjeev Kumar For CAPART:- Mr. Anshuman,Advocate 14 4.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the CAPART. Petitioners were appointed as Handloom Trainers under the Consultancy cum Guidance Centre (C.G.C.), Bania- Vaishali, which is a unit of the Council for Advancement of People's Act and Rural Technology (CAPART). Petitioners were appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.700/- per month. However, vide order dated 22.11.1989 a decision was taken that the rules and regulations applicable at CAPART Headquarters, New Delhi will also be applied at C.G.C., Bania, Vaishali. Since petitioners were being paid only a 2 consolidated salary and some of the employees similarly appointed were given benefit of regular pay scale as well as revised pay scale, as such it was a case of discrimination. Petitioners and several others similarly situated employees asked for the similar benefits as it was being allowed to the employees working at the Headquarters. They also claimed same pay scale and similar Service Condition, as applicable in case of employees working at Headquarter, CAPART, New Delhi but it was not being considered. The Chief Administrative Officer, CAPART issued an order dated 31.12.2001, whereby the petitioners were directed to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Petitioners, challenging this order have filed this writ application. Since the retirement age of the employees posted at the 3 Headquarters is sixty years and there is already a resolution to adopt the rules and regulations of working procedure of the Headquarters in case of CGC. Petitioners' case is that the employees like petitioners working at CGC must also have same retirement age of 60 years, and same pay scale as well as other benefits as applicable in case of employees working at Headquarter. Petitioners had also represented before the respondent no.5, which was forwarded to the Headquarters and also to Minister, Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi but there was no response. Thereafter petitioners filed writ application. CAPART (Respondent no.2) in its counter affidavit stated that the CAPART being one of the funding agency of CGC, Vaishali is only responsible for providing 4 fund. So far the recruitment policy and service conditions are concerned, CGC, Vaishali has its own recruitment policy. The employees of the CGC, Vaishali cannot claim the benefit of same service condition as applicable to the Officers and employees of the CAPART. The age of retirement of the employees of CAPART had no relevance with regard to fixation of age of retirement of employees of the CGC, Vaishali. They cannot claim to continue beyond the age of 58 years unless it is determined and decided by the CGC, Vaishali. Prior to filing of the present writ application CWJC No. 780 of 1993 had been filed by the employees of C.G.C. Bania, Vaishali for a direction to allow Central pay scale to the employees of CGC as it is paid to the employees of CAPART at Headquarters. In this writ application, present petitioners 5 had also joined as petitioners and their names were at serial Nos. 20 and 21 of the writ petition. The writ petition was decided and allowed directing the respondents to allow the petitioners' Central pay scale. The order passed in writ application was challenged by the CAPART, New Delhi by filing L.P.A. No. 914 of 1997. In LPA an order was passed and the order passed in the writ application and direction for making payment of similar central pay scale to the writ petitioners was stayed. Finally during the hearing of the LPA the Court was pleased to direct the respondents to frame a suitable pay structure for the employees like petitioners along with other relevant rules governing their service, such as age of retirement and terminal dues etc.,. In compliance of the direction of the High Court, the rule was framed on 19th June, 2006, 6 whereby the age of retirement has been enhanced to 60 and similar service conditions Rules has been made applicable to the employees posted at C.G.C., Baniya, Vaishali as employees of CAPART. Despite the Service Conditions Rules being framed, its benefit is not being allowed to the petitioners. The question which has arisen for consideration is what will be the date with effect from which the benefit, which has been allowed by framing a rule 19.6.2006 will be made applicable to the employees of CGC. Along with the second supplementary counter affidavit filed by the CAPART a letter has been annexed, whereby the counsel appearing for CAPART had sought for an instruction from the Headquarters at New Delhi. The query was that with effect from 7 which date the benefit of enhanced age of retirement and revised pay scale of the 5th pay Commission has been allowed to the employees of CAPART. In reply to the query, it has been replied that retirement age of the Central Government employees was enhanced as per recommendation of the 5th Pay commission of the Government of India, applicable from 1.1.1996 and the same was extended to all PESU, Autonomous Body. This benefits was extended to the employees of CAPART with effect from 13.5.1998 and their age of retirement was also enhanced to 60 years as it was made applicable in case of the Central Government employees. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there cannot be any hesitation for coming to this conclusion that petitioners were also entitled for all benefits which were made applicable to the Central 8 Government employees with effect from same date as it was allowed to the employees of the CAPART Headquarters. Petitioners have retired subsequent to 1998 in 2001-2002 and, as such they are entitled for same relief. Mr. Ansuman appearing for the CAPART, on the other hand, has submitted that since the rule was framed on the direction of the LPA Bench on 19.6.2006, whereby all benefits which was allowed to the employees of the Headquarter has been made applicable in case of employees like petitioners, as such it cannot be made retrospective. The effective date is 19.1.2006. I find that there is missing point, for which there is no reply in the counter affidavit as well as in the supplementary counter affidavit of the CAPART. In the last 9 affidavit filed by the petitioners a chart has been placed which indicates that two of writ petitioners of CWJC No. 780 of 1993 have been allowed benefit of retirement age of 60 years w.e.f. earlier date despite the fact that rule was framed on 19.1.2006. Since this benefit has been allowed to the similarly situated persons, who were also writ petitioners in the same writ application, there is no reason for not allowing same relief to the petitioners. Accordingly the writ application is allowed. The respondent nos.2 and other respondents are directed to allow the benefit of enhancement of retirement age to the petitioners. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 have retired in the year 2001 and 2003 respectively at the age of 52 years; as such they will be deemed to have retired at the age of 60 years, since extended age of 60 10 years has also expired, the petitioners are entitled for monetary benefits and other consequential benefits. Petitioner no.2 is not alive, therefore monetary and other consequential benefits payable to him will be given to his legal heirs. Respondents are directed to make payment of monetary/ consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication/production of this order. Writ application stands allowed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.kumar