Tilak Raj vs Managing Director, Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The case has been directed to be posted along with C.W.P. No. 9505 of 1997. The registry has placed the judgment

which refers to a case decided under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent points out

that the prayer in the writ petition has no bearing to any adjudication under the Village Common Lands Act and therefore, reference to C.W.P.

No. 9505 of 1997 is erroneous. I take this statement and I have proceeded to examine the case on its own merits. The case refers to claim of the

petitioner to quash the order dated 01.05.1996 under the terms of which his services were taken as superannuated on the completion of 58 years

of age. The contention was that he was entitled to be continued till 60 years. The point of whether by application of clause 16-A under the relevant

Rules a person would be superannuated at 58 years or 60 years has been considered by the Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation

Tubewell Corporation and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kohli and Others, where the Court has affirmed that clause 16-A that prescribed 58 years of

age for superannuation for Class III and 60 years for Class IV was a reasonable criteria and it was not arbitrary. The petitioner was reported to

have retired as Chargeman which was a Class III post and therefore, the claim to parity for the age of superannuation could not be entertained in

his favour.

The impugned order cannot, therefore, be assailed. The writ petition is dismissed.