@Ma @wagga IN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH @ AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (5/) No.9‘23f‘i £ 2008 (5.3.) PETITIONER / Govind Lal Thakur, S/o Shri Goverdhan Lal Thakur, aged about 58 years, R/o Thok Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit Kirandul Distt, Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT Thok Upbhokta Sahkari 'Bhandar‘ Maryadit Kirandul Through President - ThOk Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar ‘ Maryadit Kirandul, Distt. Dahtewada (C.G.) \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 2914 OF 2008 Govind Lal Thakur Versus Thok Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar, Maryadit, Kirandul. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anil Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondent. -......- - ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 24“" day of January, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks foilowing relief : 10.1. That: the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pieased to issue a writ/or writs/ order/ or orders to quash the impugned order dated 23.02.2008 Annexure P-1 by which petitioner has been ask to retire on 31.05.2008 and respondent be direct to continue in petitioner in service till the age of 60 years. 10.2. That, any other relieii this Hon’bie Court deem fit and proper may aiso kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of fustice. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner working as Salesman in the respondent society should be retired at the age of 60 years on the basis of a letter dated 1.1.2002 (Annexure P-4) written to Shri Binay Bishwas by the Chairman, Wholesale Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd., whereunder, Shri Biswas was retired at the age of 60 years. There is no other material placed by the petitioner to establish that under the provisions of law or statutory notification, the age of retirement of the employee working as Salesman is 60 years. Jae—"v. , i @ Though the petition is vague, however, the respondent in its reply has clarified that the age of retirement of the employees of the Wholesale Consumers Co—operative Stores Ltd, is 58 years, as . has been done by order dated 15.1.1997 under Clause- 46 of the Thok $ahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Kirandul Karamachari (Sewa) Niyojan Nirvachit Tatha Karya (Sthithi) Niyam. Additionally, the respondent has opposed the maintainability of this petition also on the ground that altemative statutory forum is, available to the petitioneri Be that as it may, without going into the availability of alternative statutory forum, it is found that the petition is vague and does not disclose any facts forming the basis of age claimed by the petitioner to-retire on attaining the age of 60 years. When in contradiction, the respondent has produced rules, wherein it'is clearly stated that the age of retirement is 58 years. The Supreme Court in the matter of M.P.Vidyut Karmchan‘ Sangh v, MP. Electricity Board’ has held as under : “45. Atterations in the age of retirement by the employer is a matter of executive policy, and for sufdcient and cogent reasons, the same is permissible” ln view of foregoing, as the fixation of age of retirement falls within the domain of policy of the employer, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7.‘ Accordingiy, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. -A.J,,__L ’ Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2004) 9.SCC 755