 plea seeking a direction to the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees of the State of U.P from 60 years to 62 years.){kind=link}
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Government to enhance the age of superannuation of government employees from 60 years to 62 years.
The Division Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Rajnish Kumar passed this order on the PIL filed by Vinod Kumar Garg. The bench observed that the petitioner is a complete stranger so far as the conditions of service of state government employees are concerned.
By means of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ostensibly in public interest, a prayer has been made to issue directions to the UP Government to enhance the age of retirement of government employees from 60 years to 62 years.
The Court observed,
It is strange that such a petition has been filed purportedly in public interest. The petitioner is a complete stranger so far as the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government are concerned.
It is also noticeable that the Supreme Court in more than one case has categorically held that in service matters, no PIL will be maintainable. Reference may be made to the judgment in the case of Dr Duryodhan Sahu and others versus Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273.
The Court held that, in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590, the Supreme Court referring to the judgment in the case of Dr Duryodhan Sahu and others (supra) has observed that despite the said judgment the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts.
“When we closely examine the averments made in the writ petition, what we find is that the petitioner is a complete stranger and has in fact sought alteration in the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government, hence we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition,” the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.