High Court. He submits that if this aspect of the matter was considered, the respondents ought to have extended the benefits to the petitioner. It is his case that his request was rejected by Exhibit P4 order on the sole ground that he had crossed the age on 18.1.2019, i.e., much before 31.01.2019. There is some merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the High Court had clearly held that those persons who had retired prior to the date of passing of the judgment would not be entitled to the relief, and as he was due to retire only on 31.1.2019, the benefits of the judgment ought to have been extended to him as well. This aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the respondents while passing Exhibit P4. In Ext.P5 order, persons who are similarly situated were given the benefits of Ext.P2 order and their superannuation was notionally fixed. The petitioner has a case that he has been discriminated against as some of the individuals who find a place in Ext.P5 are persons who had attained the age of 60 years before 31.01.2019, but they were extended the benefits of the judgment. I am of the considered opinion that these are matters to be considered by the competent among respondents for which necessary directions can be issued.
