news details |
|
|
| HC on enhancement in retirement age | | ‘Employees promoted to non-inferior service not entitled’ | | Jammu, July 9 (JNF) : The High Court today ruled that an employee appointed in inferior service and promoted to non-inferior service cannot claim the retirement age of 60 years instead of 55 years (now 58 years). This was held by a Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Virender Singh and Justice Hasnain Massodi.
The controversy rose in the Late Sat Pal Chopra husband of Sarla Chopra and father of respondent No 2 to 4, joined department as fitter-cum-turner on August 13, 1962, on the strength of his merit and seniority.
He rose up the ladder and on October 23, 1976 was promoted as Meter-Reader and retired from service on attaining age of 55 years on August 31, 1982.
The legal heirs aggrieved Sat Pal Chopra was retired five years before he was to retire on superannuation in terms of the rules, approached the writ Court. Petitioner case was that Sat Pal Chopra appointed fitter-cum-turner was a member of inferior service as on October 10, 1966 and according to the Civil Service Regulation 1956 was to continue in service till he attained age of 60 years.
Writ Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the writ Court, Chief Engineer EM&RE Wing and Ors initially questioned through the medium of review petition, however, the review petition did not find favour and filed this present LPA.
This landmark judgment Justice Hasnain Massodi for the Division Bench after hearing Government Advocate GS Thakur for the appellant whereas Advocate Abhinav Sharma for the respondent observed that if a person appointed as a peon-orderly prior to October 10, 1966 a post including in Schedule-II as a part of inferior service earns a few promotions during service career and reaches up to the post of Head Clerk on his attaining age of 55 years (now 58 years) would be allowed to continue in service up to 60 years and his colleague in the office initially appointed as Junior Assistant (not part of inferior service) who also has risen-up to the post of Head Assistant at the time of attaining 55 yrs (now 58 years) would be compulsorily retired on attaining such age would be discriminatory in character and conflict with the mandate of Article 14 & 16 of the constitution of India and allowed LPA against the judgment of Writ Court December 3, 2005 and the writ Court order of December 3, 2005 is set-aside.
With these observations Division Bench held that if the person appointed in inferior-service and promoted in non-inferior service cannot claim to the benefit of retirement in the age of 60 years against 55 years (now 58 years). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
