IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘TFISGARH AT BILASPUR T w.P.(S) No.233iz2‘oo‘8 (s.B.) : / Makhan Lal Patel S/o. J.R. Patel, aged labout : 58 years, R/o. Beladila, 4 Kirandul, Distt. Dantewada, (C.G.) PETITION ER VERSUS : / Thok\ Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar, ‘Maryadit, Kirandul, Through : President Kirandul, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH i BILASPUR WRIT PETlTiON (S) NO. 2337 OF 2008‘ 36' (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 0f India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anii Pandey: Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed on this 24‘“ day of January, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitionerseeks following relief : 10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court may pleased to quash Annexure P—1 order/letter dated' 09.01.2008 by which the petitioner has been ask to retire on 30.04.2008. 10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court think proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner working as Senior Salesman in the respondent department should be retired at the age of 6O years on the basis of a letter dated 1.1.2002 (Annexure P-2) written to Shri Binay Bishwas by the Chairman, Wholesale Consumers Co—operative Stores Ltd, whereunder, Shri Biswas was retired at the age of 60 years. There is no other material placed by the petitioner to establish that under the provisions of law or statutory notification, the age of retirement of the employee working as Salesman is 60 years. Though the petition is vague, however, the respondent in its reply has clarified that the age of retirement of the employees of the PETITIONER Makhan Lal Pate! Versus RESPONDENTS Thok Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar, Maryadit, Kirandul. 2 Wholesale Consumers Co—operative Stofes Ltd., is 58 years, as has been done by order dated 151.1997 under Clause— 46 of the Thok Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Kirandul Karamachari (Sewa) Niyojan Nirvachit Tatha Karya (Sthithi) Niyam. Additionally, the respondent has opposed the maintainabiiity of this petition also on the ground that alternative statutory forum is available. to the petitioner. 4! Be that as it may, without going into the availability of alternative statutory forum, it is found that the petition is vague and does not disclose any facts forming the basis of age claimed by the petitioner to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. When in contradiction, the respondent has produced rules wherein it is clearly stated that the age of retirement is 58 years. The Supreme Coun in the matter of M.P.Vidyut Kamchan‘ Sangh V. M.P. Electricity Board’ has held as under : “45. Alterations in the age of retirement by the employer is a matter of executive policy and for suftcient and cogent reasons, the same is permissible” , 6. n view of foregoing, as the fixation of age of retirement falls within the domain of policy of the employer, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri , ,Judge 1 (2004) 9 SCC 755 I , l