Ravindra Pal Singh Solanki vs Chief Secretary, Medical Health and Family Planning, Lucknow and another

M. Katju, J.—The petitioner is an employee of U. P. Government and he has prayed that he be retired on attaining the age of 60 years on the basis of the notification issued in respect of the employees of the Central Government. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention. Merely because the Central Government has raised the age of retirement of its employees to 60 years, it does not mean that the State Government employees are also entitled to continue till 60 years. Unless there is a notification issued by the State Government raising the age of retirement of its employees to 60 years, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the increase of age of retirement of Central Government employees. In my opinion, Article 16 of the Constitution has no application.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make a recommendation to the State Government to increase the age of the retirement of State Government employees upto 60 years because in modern times, the longevity of people has increased. The age of retirement of the employees of Central Government and the Armed Forces has been increased to 60 years. Hence. I see no reason why the age of retirement of U. P. Government employees should also not be increased to 60 years. This, however, is only a recommendation and it should not be treated as a binding order. It is upto the State Government to accept the recommendation or not.

The petition is disposed of.