- (1.)THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.1989 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal dismissing petitioner's claim petition No. 208 (F)/III -87 filed by the petitioner.
(2.)THE facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in District Board Allahabad in April 1964 and became Sectional Head Clerk on 1.8.1964. Subsequently, he was appointed as Office Superintendent and on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years was retired on 1.7.1984. Me filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal seeking following reliefs:
A -The petitioner be declared to be entitled to remain in service till the age of 60 years.

B - The petitioner be declared as promoted to the post of Karya Adhikari (Executive Officer), Zila Parishad, Allahabad, on the date when the post fell vacant.

The claim petition having been dismissed by the Tribunal, hence, this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the U.P. Zila Parishad Service Rules, as they were enacted originally, the age of retirement was 60 years, but the same was subsequently amended and reduced to 58 years, which is illegal and the petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. He further submitted that in 1983, a post of Karyadhikari fell vacant against which the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion but the respondents in an illegal manner did not promote him. Therefore, he is entitled for a mandamus treating him as promoted on the post of Karyadhikari on the date when the post fell vacant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal, however, has erred in law in rejecting this submission and taking a contrary view.

(3.)WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The validity of Rule 53 of U.P. Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as '1970 Rules') was neither challenged nor could have been challenged before the Tribunal. In the absence thereof, the petitioner could not have contended that for retirement, he is not governed by Rule 53 of 1970 Rules as amended and applicable in the year 1984, was retired in accordance with the said Rules on attaining age of 58 years. It is always open to the rule framing authority to provide any age of retirement and to enhance and decrease the same. The employee has no vested right to continue till a particular age except in accordance with the prescribed age in the rule. In other words, an employee is entitled to continue and retire in accordance with the applicable Rule as it is on the date of his retirement, i.e. as per the age provided in the relevant rule on that date. Reduction of retiral age from 58 to 55 was upheld by the Apex Court in K. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. : (1985)ILLJ444SC . The right of employer to prescribe and alter age of retirement by framing rules by making amendments therein has also been upheld in Yeshwant Singh Kothari v. State Bank of Indore and Ors. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 592.