M/ A F /< My?!” HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5811 of 2007 PETITIONER : Rakesh Dutt Bhatt VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. ) Post for order on § {103.2008 \ Sdl— ‘) Satish K. Agnihotri r Judge E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rakesh Dutt Bhatt, S/o Shri Laxmi Dutt Bhatt, Aged about 58 years, Post — Assistant Project Range Officer, in the office of z The Divisional Manager, Industrial Plantation Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited, Raipur (C.G.R.V.V.N.Ltd.), Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, Dist‘ Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o — 18, Nandan Vihar Colony, Mungeli Road, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigarn Limited Raipur (C.G.R.V.V.N.Ltd.), Lokash Plaza, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited Raipur (C.G.R.V.V.N. Ltd), Lokash Plaza, Shanker Nager, Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) The Regional General Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.R.V.V.N.Ltd.) Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited Bilaspur, Om Zone, Shubham Vihar, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Divisional Manager, Industrial Plantation Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigarn Limited, Bilaspur, (C.G.R.V.V.N.Ltd.), Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents. ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 03.08.2007 (Annexure P/9) passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the age of superannuation of the petitioner was 30.04.2007 and the order dated 23.06.2007 (Annexure P/S) increasing'the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years came into force with effect from 23.06.2007. Further, the petitioner seeks writ/direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Assistant Project Range WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5811 of 2007 (Passed on 5f?$.day of March, 2008) \§ Officer till he at’taines the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years with arrears of salary treating the entire period after 58 years on duty. The facts, in nutshell are that the petitioner served the respondent department as on the post of Assistant Project Officer till he attained the age of 58 years. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, during his service, he was awarded several certificates of excellence, silver medal and appreciation. The respondent No. 3 retired the petitioner compulsorily after having completed 58 years of service on superannuation by order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P/4). Alongwith the petitioner, other officers were also retired on having attained the age of 58 years. Accordingly, the petitioner retired on 30.04.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. In the meantime, the State Government decided to increase the age of superannuation of Class I, Class II and Class III employees to 60 years from 58 years and 62 years in case of Class IV employees. The order came into effect from 23.6.2007 (Annexure P/S). Other similarly situated employees who were to retire after 23.6.2007, as is evident from serial no. 6 to 28 from the list dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P/4) were granted benefit of the order dated 23.06.2007 (Annexure P/5) as they had not attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years before the said date. Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is not a case of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation but a case of compulsory retirement as stated in the order .dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P/4). Learned counsel further submits that the other employees who were to retire aner 23.06.2007 were allowed to continue till attaining the age of 60 years. On query, as to whether any person who had retired prior to 23.6.2007 was reinstated in service, leamed counsel Shri Deshmukh, in categorical terms stated none. Per contra, Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, leamed Deputy Advocate General for the State / respondents would submit that this is not a case of compulsory retirement but it was a case of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, as it then was. The word ‘compulsory retirement’ used in the order dated 6.9.2007 (Annexure P/4) does not decide the nature of the retirement as is clear from the facts ofthe case. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and records appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years as at that point of time, the age of superannuation was 58 years. The use of word ‘compulsory retirement’ in the order dated 6.9.2007 has no meaning as the petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The subsequent order dated 23.6.2007 increasing the age of retirement cannot be of any help to the petitioner as the petitioner had already retired prior to 23.6.2007 when the increase of age of superannuation came into force. The order dated 03.8.2007 as such is perfectly just and proper and no interference is warranted. The word ‘cornpulsory’ in the order is to be examined in the facts of the case as the order was passed on 06.09.2006 which came into effect on 30.04.2007 when the petitioner attained the age of 58 years. The veil can be lifted to known real face of the order. In the matter of Chandra Prakash Vs. State of A.P. & Others {(2005) 5 SCC 152}, the Supreme Court observed as under: “12 .......The courts can, therefore, lift the veil of an innocuously—worded order to look at the real face 0f the order and to find out whether it is an innocent as worded. . ..” The Supreme Court, in the matter of M.P.Vidyut Karmchari Sangh Vs. M.P. Electricity Board, {(2004) 9 SCC 755}, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on para 45 makes the legal position clear. It reads as under: “45. Alterations in the age of retirement by the employer is a matter of executive policy and for sufficient. and cogent reasons, the same is permissible” The petitioner has not challenged the grounds of increase of age in this petition. Leamed counsel has further relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Bahadur Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Others {(2006) 7 SCC 660}. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case as that was a case where management exercising its discretion extended the age of retirement of an individual employee. In View of the.foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order‘as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri t Judge ‘