HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court AFR Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 483 of 2015 Appellant :- Dulare Lal And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.C. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23 June 2015 in a writ petition filed by the appellants. The relief which the appellants sought was in the nature of a writ restraining the respondents from interfering with their working as assistant teachers until the end of academic session 2015-16 i.e. until 31 March 2016. The learned Single Judge finding no merit in the petition has dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment and order.
Both the appellants are assistant teachers in Bapu Inter College, Sadat, Ghazipur. The date of birth of the first appellant is 3 January 1953 and hence he attained the age of superannuation of 62 years on 2 January 2015. The date of birth of the second appellant is 14 January 1953 and he consequently attained the age of superannuation on 13 January 2015. At the material time, the date of superannuation fell within the midst of the academic session 2014-15. Hence, under the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the appellants were permitted to continue until 30 June 2015 which was the end of the academic session 2014-15. Now, it would be material to note that, at the relevant time, the academic session commenced from 1 July and ended on 30 June. The academic session as prescribed in Regulation 21 of Chapter III came to be altered following an amendment to Regulation 21 by a gazette notification dated 17 June 2015. The unamended and amended provisions of Regulation 21 read as follows:
Unamended Regulation 21 Amended Regulation 21 vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kid rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dk vf/kos'k o; ok;k 2 tqykbZ vkSj 30 twu ds e/; esa fdlh frfFk dks iMrk gS rks mls] ml n'kk dks NksMdj tcfd og Lo;a lsok forj.k u ysus gsrq fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk ls nks ekg iwoZ ns n]s 30 twu rd lsok foLrj.k Lo;aeso iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk rkfd xzh"ekodk'k ds mijkUr tqykbZ esa izrhLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks ldsA blds vrfjdDr lsok foLrj.k dsoy mUgh fof'k"B n'kkvksa esa iznku fd;k tk ldsxk] tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sA ;fn fdlh fyfid vFkok prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkfj;ksa ds vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk fdlh ekg ds e/; fdlh frfFk dks iMrh gS rks mldk lsok foLrj.k ml ekl dh vfUre frfFk rd iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxkA fdUrq ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk fdlh ekg dh igyh rkjh[k dks iMs rks mls iwoZorhZ ekg dh vfUre frfFk dks lsok fuo`Rr dj fn;k tk;sxkA ^^vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kid rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dk vf/ko"kZ o; 2 vizSy vkSj 31 ekpZ ds e/; esa fdlh frfFk dks iMrk gS rks mls] ml n'kk dks NksMdj tcfd og Lo;a lsok foLrj.k u ysus gsrq fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk ls 2 ekg iwoZ ns nsa] 31 ekpZ rd lsok foLrj.k Loeso iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk rkfd xzh"ekodk'k ds iwoZ vizSy ekg esa izfrLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr lsok foLrj.k dsoy mUgha fof'k"V n'kkvksa esa iznku fd;k tk ldsxk] tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sA ;fn fdlh fyfid vFkok prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkfj;ksa ds vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk fdlh ekg ds e/; fdlh frfFk dks iMrh gS rks mldk lsok foLrj.k ml ekl dh vfUre frfFk rd iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxkA fdUrq ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk fdlh ekg dh igyh rkjh[k dks iMs rks mls iwoZorhZ ekg dh vfUre frfFk dks lsokfuo`Rr dj fn;k tk;sxk^^ As a result of the amended provisions, the academic year was changed to 1 April to 31 March of the following year. Under the then existing provisions, the superannuation of the appellants fell in the midst of academic session 2014-15 and hence they were permitted to continue until 30 June 2015. The issue is as to whether they would be entitled to a further extension of service until 31 March 2016 following the change in the academic year.
The learned Single Judge has answered that issue in negative holding that the appellants had already taken the benefit of extension of employment under the existing Regulation which was applicable to them. In the view of the learned Single Judge, Regulation 21 has not provided for an extension of service to those who had attained the age of superannuation in the midst of academic session 2014-15 and they were only entitled to continue till the end of that academic session. The learned Single Judge has observed as follows:
"The extension of service of a person in employment is a concept well known to service law. On attaining the age of superannuation, no employee has any right to claim continuance in service. However, the employer, in terms of the relevant service rules, has power to grant extension of service to an employee. The employee has no right to claim extension of service rather it is an enabling power of the employer under Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations to utilize the service of an employee in the interest of the organization so that teaching of the students due to retirement of teacher in mid session may not be disrupted. The petitioners attained the age of superannuation in the mid of academic session 2014-15 which ends on 30th June, 2015. Thus, the petitioners have no right to continue or claim continuation in service after 30th June, 2015. Unamended Regulation 21 merely has the effect of postponing the date of superannuation and continuation of the same service till 30th June following the date of superannuation. Amended regulation 21 effective from the academic session 2015-16 has no application with regard to the petitioners who attained the age of superannuation in the mid of academic session 2014-15 prior to 1st April, 2015. Thus, in the absence of any legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right, which is the foundation for a writ in the nature of mandamus, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked."
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon certain interim orders which were passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 2 July 2015 in Writ-A No. 36012 of 2015, Writ-A No. 35995 of 2015, Writ-A No. 36010 of 2015 and Writ-A No. 36102 of 2015. Apart from the above interim orders, our attention was drawn to the judgments of two learned Single Judges in Ramdeni Ram vs State of U.P. and ors.1 and in Abdullah Khan vs. State of U.P. and ors.2 The basic issue before the Court is whether a person who had already attained the age of superannuation prior to 1 April 2015 and who had availed of an extension of service until the end of the academic session would be entitled to a further extension of service until 31 March 2016. In answer to this question, what must be emphasized is that the purpose of granting an extension of service until the end of the academic session is to protect the interest of education of the students so that the retirement of a teacher during the midst of an academic session does not result in disrupting the cause of education. This was also adverted to in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Prasad Agnihotri vs. State of U.P. and ors.3 upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge.
In the case of the appellants, it is clear that they attained the age of superannuation in January 2015 during the midst of academic year 2014-15. Hence, they were granted an extension of service until the end of the academic session which then stood as 30 June 2015. The date of superannuation is not postponed as a result of Regulation 21 but employees are only granted an extension until the end of the academic session. Once having availed of the extension of service until 30 June, the appellants would not be entitled to a further extension of service until 31 March 2016. The appellants would not be entitled to claim that as a result of the change in the academic year now to 1 April - 31 March, their date of superannuation falls in the midst of the academic year thereby entitling them to a further extension of service. The appellants have already availed of an extension of service and there would be no occasion granting them a further extension.
Dealing with the impact of amended Regulation 21 in Bhajan Lal Diwakar vs. Bani Singh Thakurela and ors,4, this Court held:
"The learned Single Judge has, in our opinion, erred in coming to the conclusion that the first respondent was entitled to an extension in service beyond 30 June 2015. Though in holding this, the learned Single Judge has relied on an earlier interim order, once the first respondent had duly availed of the extension till the date of effective retirement, which was to take place on 30 June 2015, there was no warrant for the grant of any further benefit to him. Amended Regulation 21, it must be noted, speaks of the date of retirement. In the case of the first respondent, the date of retirement would have been in July 2014. The date of retirement is not postponed to 30 June 2015 and all that happened as a result of the operation of the regulation is a continuance in service being granted beyond the age of retirement, so as to ensure that the academic interests of the students are not disrupted. That does not have any effect of postponing the original date of retirement of the first respondent, which was in July 2014."
For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.7.2015
RK (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
(Yashwant Varma, J)