1. We have heard Mr Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to dispose of this appeal (LPA (SW) No. 343/2001) at the preliminary stage.
2. The appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dated 22nd February 2001 passed by the learned single judge in dismissing the writ petition holding it without merit.
3. Setting in facts of the case, writ petitioner was an employee of PHE department holding a post of plant repairer in the city division. Main plank of his contention is that his case falls within the purview of schedule all in the list of appointments specifically classed as inferior under Article 226 (i) of the Civil Service Regulations and was, thus, to superannuate at the age of 60 years. That the retirement of the writ petitioner at the age of 58 years was illegal and subject to hostile discrimination. His further submission is that, another employee Gujjar Singh, who too was working as Plant Repairer, was retired on at taining the age of 60 years. The specific stand of the respondents in the demurrer was that the post of Plant Repairer does not fall in the category notified, as appoint ments specifically classed as inferior in Schedule-ll of Civil Service Regulations in the Water Works Department. That in case of Gujjar Singh, the order of retirement at the age of 60 years was in violation of the Rules and, thus, writ petitioner is not vested with any right to claim benefit on such analogy. Further plea taken by the respondents was that the petitioner was in the revised pay scale of Rs 1400-1600 at the time of his retirement provided to class-Ill employees and, thus, on this count also, the claim of the writ petitioner was stated to be legally untenable. It is not disputed that the post of Plant Repairer does not fall in any one of the categories indicated in Schedule-ll under the heading "Waterworks Department", and employer of the writ petitioner. It is pertinent to point out that the employment of the writ petitioner is in terms and conditions governed by the relevant recruitment and promotion rules. Superannuation age of 60 years is available only in case of appointments specially classed as inferior. It is not for the court to give the meaning different than what is not contemplated in the rules in view of its true import on a plan reading.
4. Mr Rupinder Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant-writ petitioner, however, did not deny that the post of Plant Repairer was inserted in the Electric Department by the Rule Making Authority and this post, however, did not find place in the Water Works Department. This seems to have been done deliberately so as not to turn the post of Plant Repairer as inferior. So, what is, therefore, indisputably gatherable from the Rule position is that, no exception can be made by allowing the writ petitioner-appellant to superannuate at the age of 60 years when the Rules, provided retiring age at-58 years. Even the claim of discrimination putforth by the appellant-writ petitioner is also not tenable in view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents that the retirement of Gujjar Singh at the age of 60 years was de-hors the Rules and in such an event, the writ petitioner is not vested with any right to claim equivalence with his case. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the case of Gujjar Singh, which if allowed, would occasion to perpetuate the wrong committed in one case earlier by repeating it under the seal of the court. In this view of the matter, there does not appear any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single judge inviting our interference.
5. Taking conspectus of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
6. No order as to costs.
Jammu
19/10/2001