33mm Tm‘ mu‘BLE mag coum 93" czmmmwa AT BllASPUR my. 3? /2e g Rameshwar Pandey s/o Tokedax Pandey aged 48 yearsrR/g Qg’l‘h.’ 155 Camp-I Taka Nagar Bhilai nurg (Chhattisgarh) "¥J" ) : 1‘.‘ Union af India . through President cf India New Elelhi . 2. HOS-C334!- through Asstt. General Manager (Persenal) Corporate; Perscnal Repartment mum-A §7 3. Senior Manager (I/C) H.S.C.’ia. Bhilai m 1 XI-HC-EZ mmmmm,w am,W o ..4W‘?...57rzo.01 w 19? 1 m i \ .mJ v mmw ‘mmf:wm ‘ \amf-aq‘m 4 16.1.2001’: Mrs T.K. Tiwari for‘t The petitioner is aggr eved by noticé received by him rwhich was issued by Assist:nt Manager,respondent no.2 r-tixed w1th effect Erom 20 1 2001 stating that he shall be on attainlng the age of su“erannuation.rlt :s the case o£ 'the wrlt petltioner that\ 60 years whlch is now sou years to 58 years by a s -Thé said circular reads th s “Pursuaht to’the «irective o the Gpvernment of Stee, New’Delhi,vide 000 HSM dt015.12.2000gage has been rolled back from yrars. Appropricte actlon ls / W:o have already attalned the r shall be attalning the same This is;ue wlth approval of the Competent Autno' No grievance has b l c1rcular. It has a matter;of polic taken by the competent M authority° Learned couns e; effect of the c1rcu1ar ha, been dlrected only agalnst the i..2 of India Minist OM N0. 10 (30) \of superannuatic 6O years to 58 MM J2 (w””~ petitioner. e age of superannuation was to be rolled—back from 60 sequent order lssued on 18.12.2000. :u in1t1ated for thé retlrement of the employees of the company ‘age of 58 years 'by Janucry,2001. ty.n V r taken as regards issuance bfi£¢ In 7 " for the petltloner submlts that in mew h » t g u f l £ 2 e y .W‘W(W) wm $mmt&m ‘ am&¢$wm$ § a& %eR' ‘ $Wm mmmafza og2... 1 Jyotishi writ petitioner and not against any'other'perscnywho are-similarly situated. It can no% be taken into ccns that the circular issued by the competent authority has .not been assaileé and is indeed unassailablegin as much as‘it relates to the policy to be taken by the competent authority.As a matter of attained~the age of158 gears‘sometime in Februaryi,?00$ By this date writ petitioaer is almost 59 years of‘agea Though it is stated at th an application'regarding the date of birth of the petitioner is pending before'the labour court, that matter is not an issue before this Court, ‘In the light of the facts highlighted‘in this petition and\on perusal of documents placed on record and also after hearing 1e arned counseL for the petitioner, I am‘of the’ View that no ease has bein madeuout for interferenoe by this Court’under Article 226 ”f the Constitution of India. 2 appears that this submission ideration in View of the fact fact; the writ petitéoii’er I hasgg 1/. a bar by the leatned/Founsel for the petitioner today\that Accordingly th petition is dismissed. Sdl- ‘ - chief Justice A A, GRPRI—FS/4—4/99—20DOO .