CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6984 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 25 ,2011 Shiv Kumar and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by respondent No.3, retiring them from service, which is stated to be contrary to the provisions of Haryana State Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1969 (for short, “1969 Rules”). They would also seek a writ of prohibition for staying the operation of the impugned order and for allowing them to continue in service in terms of the provisions of 1969 Rules. The petitioners claim that they were appointed to the service and their terms and conditions of service were governed by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6984 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: 1969 rules. The petitioners have been continuously working and have received various promotions in due course of their service career. As per Rule 2.21 of 1969 Rules, every employee appointed to the service shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years, provided he is granted extension of 2 years by the Administrative Committee. This extension can be granted by taking into consideration the service record and the medical fitness. The rules have been amended in the year 1988, which may be referred `1988 Rules'. As per these rules, the age for retirement of an employee is 58 years and for Class IV employees, the age of retirement being 60 years. The Union of employees of HAFED had submitted a demand that their service conditions would be governed by 1969 Rules as 1988 Rules will apply prospectively. Reference is made to a decision in Civil Writ Petition No.18358 of 2001, where this Court has been pleased to allow the writ petition saying that the amended 1988 Rules can not adversely effect the valuable legal rights of the petitioners, as far as grant of retiral dues are concerned. Assuming that the service conditions of the petitioners would be governed by 1969 Rules, the petitioners were expecting extension of 2 years service, which can be granted under Rule 2.12 of 1969 Rules. The impugned order has now been issued retiring the petitioners on 58 years of age and hence, they have filed the present writ petition. The plea is that the petitioners are entitled to extension for 2 years and, thus, can not be retired on completion of 58 years of age. I can not persuade myself to accept the contention as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6984 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: raised. Even as per 1969 Rules, the age of retirement is 58 years but is extendable to 60 years. The petitioners would not have any right to seek extension of service for 2 years, especially so when this rule position has undergone a change. Now, it is specifically laid down that the age of retirement would be 58 years. The respondents are well within their rights to even effect the change in age of retirement whereas present one is not such a case where any change is being effected. No right of the petitioners has been taken away by not making a provision for grant of extension, which even otherwise could not have been claimed as a matter of right. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 25,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE