IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14139 of 2006 ALL INDIA D.R.D.A.STAFF WELFAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.3449 of 2007 CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.8685 of 2007 HARE RAM JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.2424 of 2007 FAKIRA THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner (C.W.J.C. 14139/06) : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate Mr. Arif Siddiqui, Advocate For the State : G.A. 5 For the Petitioner (C.W.J.C. 3449/07) : Mr. S.P. Srivastav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr.Ram Chandra Pd. Bharti, SC -14 Mr. Ajay Kumar JC to SC-14 For the Petitioner (C.W.J.C. 2424/07) : Mr. Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate Mr. Arif Siddiqui, Advocate For the State : G.A. 11 7 13.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India. In all these writ applications a common prayer on behalf of the petitioners are that they should be permitted to retire at the age of 60 years just like other State Government’s employees in stead of 58 years of age. 2 It seems that the demand for enhancement of age of retirement of the employees of D.R.D.A. across the State has been under consideration of the State Government, especially, the Rural Development Department of the Government of Bihar. Vide communication no. 990 dated 31.01.2007, which has been brought on record in at least C.W.J.C. No. 8685/07, indicates that after due consultation with the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, the Rural Development Department accorded liberty to the different D.R.D.A. to enhance the age of retirement of its employees to 60 years. This liberty, however, has two riders to it: 1. That the decision has to be taken at the level of the concerned D.R.D.A. and 2. That the additional expenditure will have to be borne by the D.R.D.A. Another aspect, which has been indicated in the said communication is that this decision shall take effect prospectively and all those persons who have retired prior to the order dated 31.01.2007, will not get the benefit of enhanced age of retirement. With categorical steps having been taken by the State Government in its communication dated 31.01.2007, it is not in dispute that 3 any member now employees of the D.R.D.A. do have the benefit of superannuation on reaching the age of 60 years. The formalities of taking a decision for enhancing the age may be required by the individual D.R.D.As., but, that is just a formality should completed at their level. If any D.R.D.A. has any serious issue or reasons for not taking a decision for enhancement of age of superannuation, then, they have freedom to seek an appropriate clarification from the controlling department which is Rural Development Department, but, then that will be an exception not a rule. The Court also wants to record that merely because there has been delay in taking a decision with regard to enhancement of age of retirement, merely, because some employees have attained the age of 58 years and were made to retire now they cannot be barred from continuing in service till they reach the age of 60 years. There has to be uniform age of retirement and two set of dates of retirement cannot be created by the respondents, merely, because they cannot take decision at an appropriate time within a given time frame. It is clarified that the communication dated 31.01.2007, in relation to the fact that the benefit shall be available 4 prospectively and not retrospectively is hereby declared to be bad in law. All such employees will continue to work and shall superannuate from service at the age of 60 years, irrespective of the fact that they had were made to retire at the age of 58 years, awaiting the final decision of the State Government in this regard. The writ applications are allowed and disposed of with the above direction. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)