This Special Appeal was against a Single Judge order dismissing a writ petition challenging retirement based on age computation. The Court, agreeing with the High Court view, found no ground for interference and dismissed the appeal.
The Special Appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR --------------------------------------------------------
SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 296 of 1999
PURAN SINGH VERMA V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ORS
Mr. Lalit Purohit for Mr. SD VYAS, for the appellant Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, AGA, for the respondent Date of Order : 7.3.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MANAK MOHTA,J.
ORDER -----
This appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.1.1999, dismissing the writ petition. A look at the impugned order shows, that it is a very brief order, which reads as under :-
“In view of the judgment of Kistoor Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998(3) RLW 1769, the petition is dismissed.”
Then a look at the judgment in Kistoor Singh’s case shows, that the controversy involved in that case was as to how the date of retirement is to be computed, inasmuch as in that writ petition, the writ-petitioner was born on 1st June, and a contention was raised, that he would attain the age of superannuation only on 1st June. The
2
controversy was raised in the circumstance, that if he were to retire on 1st June, then the State Government's subsequent order dated 27.6.1998 (present Annex.5), extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, which confers the benefit on the petitioner therein, and it was held therein, that the petitioner attains the age of superannuation on 31st of May.
In the present case also the date of birth of the appellant is 01.6.1940, and he has been retired vide order 30.5.1998 (Annex.2) w.e.f. afternoon of 31.5.1998. The petitioner also claims benefit of State Government's subsequent order dated 27.6.1998, whereby the age of superannuation has been increased from 58 to 60 years.
We have gone through the writ petition and the annexures.
A look at the order of the State Government dated 27.6.1998 (Annex.5) also shows, that it proceeds on the assumption, that an employee completes a particular age on the last day of the previous month, inasmuch as all that the order says is, that the Government has decided to increase the retirement age from 58 to 60 years, with immediate effect, and this decision will apply to Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad, and Work-Charge employees, and further speaks, that consequent upon this decision, the employees who were to complete 58 year on 30.6.1998, will
3
not be retired on 30.6.1998. Obviously, this order contemplated only those employees, who were to complete 58 years of age on 30.6.1998, and were to retire on that date.
Then a look at the representation (Annex.3), submitted by the petitioner-appellant himself also shows, that even therein this was not the controversy ever raised by the petitioner, that he would have completed 58 years of age, not on 31.5.1998, but on any other subsequent date, rather the only controversy raised was, that since a person taking birth on 2nd June gets the benefit of this order, there is no justification for depriving the benefit thereof to a person, taking birth on 1st June.
In our view, this does not furnish any ground for interference. We have gone through the decision given in Kishtoor Singh’s case, and find ourselves one, with the reasoning given therein.
Thus, we do not find any force in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
( MANAK MOHTA ),J.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/Sanjay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee born on 1st June can claim the benefit of an order raising retirement age to 60 when the order computed eligibility based on completing the age on the last day of the previous mont
Whether the judgment in Kistoor Singh case grounds require interference with the impugned order dismissing the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kistoor Singh Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶8
Kistoor Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998(3) RLW 1769
Kishtoor Singh's caseRelied on¶18
Kishtoor Singh's case
PURAN SINGH VERMA
STATE OF RAJ.
N P GUPTA
MANAK MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
