IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 281 of 2009 (S/B) Narendra Singh Verma. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. .………. Respondents. Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The petitioner was admittedly earlier an employee of the U.P. State Seed Certification Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. Agency”). Consequent upon the reorganisation of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner was allocated to the Uttarakhand State Seed Certification Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “Uttarakhand Agency”). 2. During the employment of the petitioner with the Uttarakhand Agency, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 10.01.2002, revising the age of retirement for Government servants from 58 years to 60 years. The Uttarakhand Agency also allegedly framed the Uttarakhand State Seed Certification Agency Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2005”), wherein the age of retirement on superannuation was also changed from 58 years to 60 years. Based on the Government Order dated 10.01.2002 and the Rules of 2005, the petitioner, who was sought to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.07.2007, raised a challenge to the determination of the Uttarakhand Agency, firstly, before this Court, and thereupon in furtherance of directions issued by this Court, before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, by filing Claim Petition No. 46 of 2007. The aforesaid Claim Petition was however dismissed by the Public Services Tribunal, vide its order dated 15.09.2009. The order dated 15.09.2009, rendered by the Public Services Tribunal, dismissing Claim Petition No. 46 of 2007 2 filed by the petitioner, has been impugned before this Court through the present writ petition. 3. Herein also, the twin contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are based on the Government Order dated 10.01.2002, as also the Rules of 2005. 4. Insofar as the Government Order of 2002 is concerned, the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been invited to the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein it is inter alia stated as under: “4. That the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit are wrong hence denied. It is admitted fact in the Government order dated 10.1.2002 which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the Counter Affidavit, that only to that departments of Uttarakhand comes under the aforesaid Government order who had not made their own Rules within two years. It is relevant to mention here that the department of respondent no. 3 had already made their own Rules in year 2005. It is again relevant to mention here that if it is not so then how one Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma S/o Shri Trilok Chandra Sharma is entitled to retire at attaining the age of 60 years, who is working as Senior Seed Certification Inspector in the same department. For kind perusal of date of birth and superannuation date of Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma. The copy of Seniority List 2006 and Certificate issued by the department for Domicile are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. R.A. 1 & R.A. 2 to this Affidavit.” A perusal of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner himself reveals the acknowledgement at the hands of the petitioner, to the effect, that the Government Order issued in the year 2002 (relied upon by the petitioner) is applicable only to Government departments of the State of Uttarakhand. We are satisfied, that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in arriving at the conclusion, that the Uttarakhand Agency was not a department of the State Government, and as such, the Government Order issued on 10.01.2002 was inapplicable insofar as the determination of the conditions of service of the petitioner are concerned. Based on the aforesaid conclusion, we are satisfied, that the claim of continuation up to the age of 60 years, at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is clearly unjustified. 3 5. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the claim of the petitioner is based on the Rules of 2005. Insofar as the aforesaid Rules of 2005 are concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the aforesaid Rules have not been finally approved by the State Government, and as such, the same are only in the nature of draft Rules. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that even till date, the aforesaid Rules have not been approved and their status as draft Rules continues even now. 6. It is not possible for us to accept the claim of the petitioner on the basis of merely draft Rules, which are pending consideration before the State Government for approval. Till the aforesaid Rules of 2005 are approved and enforced, the petitioner cannot rely upon them, for extension of his age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. We, therefore, find no merit in the second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Yet another contention has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Referring to paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner (which has been extracted above), it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a person similarly situated as the petitioner, namely, Brij Mohan Sharma, who was holding the post of Senior Seed Certification Inspector, was allowed to continue to render service up to the age of 60 years. It is submitted, that the petitioner has been wrongfully discriminated at the hands of the respondents, by requiring him to retire at the age of 58 years. 8. In order to repudiate the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocate representing respondent No. 3, states that inadvertently the afore-stated Brij Mohan Sharma was permitted to continue beyond the age of 58 years. However, the aforesaid action at the hands of the Uttarakhand Agency was subsequently corrected, by retiring the afore-stated Brij Mohan Sharma with effect from the date on which he attained the age of 58 years. Thus viewed, it is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, that the petitioner cannot claim to have been discriminated. 4 9. We have considered the third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the submission advanced by Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocate representing respondent No. 3, it is apparent, that the mistake earlier committed was rectified, and the afore-stated Brij Mohan Sharma was required to retire at the age of 58 years. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the issue of discrimination does not arise at all. Accordingly, we find no merit even in the third and the last submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 08.07.2010 08.07.2010 G