IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 783 (S/B) 2002 Sabber Hussain S/o Late Salimuddhin R/o Village Jeevan Garh P.O. Ambari, District Dehradun. ............ Petitioner. Versus (1) State of Uttaranchal , through the Secretary Irrigation, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. (2) The Chief Engineer (Uttarakhand) Yamuna Colony, Dehradun (Uttarakhand) (3) The Chief Engineer (Yamuna), Yamuna Ghati Pariyojana, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun. (4) The Superintending Engineer, Tones Civil Construction Circle (I) Yamuna Colony, Dehradun. (5) Superintending Engineer Lakhwar Vyasi Construction Circle (I) Yamuna Colony, Dehradun. (6) Executive Engineer Irrigation Department Yamuna Construction Division (I) Yamuna Colony, Dehradun. (7) Executive Engineer Irrigation Department, Lakhwar (I) Dakpatthar, Dehradun. (8) Assistant Engineer II Yamuna Nirman Khand-I Dak Patthar, Dehradun. .......Opposite Parties. Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, learned standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to render service as 'Work Charged Road Roller Operator" in the establishment Yamuna Ghati Pariyojana, Irrigation Department of Government of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has further sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.12.2001, whereby the petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of 58 years. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has illegally retired at the age of 58 years. He has claimed that as per the Government Order, the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent establishment could have retired only on attaining age of 60 years. It is further stated that similarly situated one Jagannath Sharma filed earlier Writ Petition No. 546 (S/B) of 2002, challenging his retirement at the age of 58 years and under interim order dated 27.05.2002, he is continuing in service. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner though a Work charged Employee cannot be discriminated as against the employees regularly appointed. (4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 8, it is stated that the petitioner completed the age of 58 years on 31.12.2001, while the government Order No. 806/Ka-2/2002, Dehradun, dated 15th June 2002 (copy of which is Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit) became effective from 1st June 2002. (5) I have gone through the copy of the Government Order dated 15th June 2002, and found that the age of retirement of the Government employees of the State was increased from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 1st June 2002. The petitioner admittedly had completed age of 58 years on 31st December 2001, as such no benefit can be given to the petition under the Government Order issued on 15th June 2002. Apart from this, copy of Work charged Establishment Rules, 1978, which is Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit, shows that under clause (iv) of Rule (3) of said Rules no work charged employee shall remain in service ordinarily after attaining the age of superannuation, as is fixed for the equivalent posts in the regular Establishment. In view of clause (iv) of Rule (3) of the Work Charged Establishment Rules, 1978, the petitioner had to retire at the age of 58 years in the month of December 2001. The Government Order dated 15th June 2002, as discussed above is only prospective and applicable to the employees who are due to retire on or after 1st June 2002. In the above circumstances, even if under interim order dated 27.05.2002, another employee is directed to continue in service in Writ Petition No. 546 (S/B) of 2002, under interim order the petitioner cannot be given benefit thereof as there is no ratio decidendi given the interim order passed in said writ petition. (6) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to all post retrial benefits admissible to him under the Rules, treating him retired on 31.12.2001 on attaining the age of 58 years. (Expedite Application No. 312 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C.Pant, J.) Dt.04.03.2008 NS