HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 213 of 2008 APPELLANT Rakesh Dutt Bhatt aged about 58 PETITIONER years, S/o Shri Laxmi Dutt Bhatt, Post -— Assistant Project Range Officer, In the office of :- The Divisional Manager, industrial Plantation ' Division Bilaspur, {Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited Raipur (CGRWN Ltd) } Shanti Nagar Bilaspur Dist Bilaspur (CG) R/o 18 Nandan Vihar Colony Mungeli Road,Dist Bilaspur(C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh through it's The Secretary, Forest Department, DKS Bhavan Raipur (CG) 2 The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited Raipur (CGRWN Ltd) Lokash Plaza Shanker Nagar Raipur Dist Raipur(CG) 3 p The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited Raipur (CGRWN Ltd) Lokash Plaza Shanker Nagar Raipur Dist Raipur (CG) 4 Regional General Manager Bilaspur, The (CGRWN) Ltd Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited, Bilaspur, 0m Zone Shubhum Vihar, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG) The Divisionat Manager, industrial Plantation Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited, BiIaSpur (CGRWN Ltd) Shanti Nagar Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur (CG) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 1 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH! ACT, 2006 Present: Shri Vijay K Deshmukh, learned counsel forthe appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. Judgment (18m March, 2009) l The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J‘ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on l.A. No.02/2008, an application for 'condonation of the delay in filing the writ appeal. 2) On‘ due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application for condonation of the delay, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in tiling the appeal. 3) LA. No.02/20d8, therefore,,,is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant - Rakesh outt Bhatt has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 05.03.2008, passed in-W.P.(S) No.581 1/2007. \t‘ l .‘U 6) The appellant l petitioner had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs : “7.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be call for the entire records of the writ petition for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court. 7.2 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be To quash the impugned 'impugn order / letter dated 03/08/2007 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.3. 7.3 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be issue a suitable writ against the respondents permit to serve the petitioner in the respondent department as on same post i.e. Assistant Project Officer range till the attaining the age of superannuating i.e. 60 years. 7.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to calculate the entire period of the petitioner to be treated as on duty and give the payment. 7.5 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be passed an order to given to monthly salary to the petitioner. 7.6 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon’ble court feels m in the facts & circumstances of the case. 7.7 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be order to cast of the petition}: 7) The petitioner, thus, in substance, was seeking quashing of the order dated 03.08.2007 (Annexure P—Q in the writ petition) whereby his representation seeking continuance in service till his attaining the age of 60 years was rejected. . 8) Appellant - Rakesh Dutt Bhatt was retired from service on 30.04.2007 on his attaining the age of superannuation which at \x‘ t ‘, \ the relevant time was 58 years. Subsequently, vide order dated 23.06.2007, the age of retirement in the appellant’s department was modified from 58 years to 6O years. The appellant on the basis of the order dated 2306.200? sought his continuance in service till his attaining the age of 60 years. The appellant‘s department rejected the appellant's representation on the ground that the appellant retired from, service on 30.04.2007, much prior to the modification of the, age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years vide order dated 23.06.2007. 9) Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, teamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant in fact was retired compulsorily which is evident from Annexure P/4. 10) Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that on the date of retirement of the appellant i.e. 30.04.2007, the age of retirement in the appellant’s department was 58 years and the appellant was retired from service on his attaining the age of 58 years. As such mere mention of the words ‘Compuisory Retirement' in Annexure P-4 is of no help to the appellant as admittedly the appellant was retired on his attaining the age of superannuation. The-appellant obviously cannot claim any benefit of the order dated 23.06.2007, which was passed after his retirement. 11) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. I »,24 12) The writ appeaL therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is Sd/- ‘ Sunii Kumar Smha Jdg’/// subbu g3 ' »A4 .