Bhajan Lal Diwakar vs Bani Singh Thakurela And 4 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 1340 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Chief Justice's Court                                                                                  AFR
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 492 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- Bhajan Lal Diwakar
 
Respondent :- Bani Singh Thakurela And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Bheem Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Yadav,P.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

The special appeal has arisen from an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 9 July 2015. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the first respondent, who is the original petitioner, has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim order, and accordingly, extended the benefit of an order dated 7 May 2015 of a learned Single Judge in Ram Murti Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh1. The consequence of the impugned direction is that the services of the first respondent would stand extended until 31 March 2016 and he would be entitled to be paid salary as and when it accrues. The learned Single Judge however, recorded the statement of the first respondent that in the event that the writ petition is dismissed, the salary would be refunded. At the hearing of the special appeal, all the learned counsel agreed that the issue raised would govern the writ petition as well and hence, the petition itself may be disposed of at this stage, by the Division Bench.

The dispute relates to an Institution by the name of Lagsama Inter College, Gaunda, District Aligarh to which, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 19212 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder are applicable. The appellant has claimed that he was appointed as a Lecturer in Geography on 24 July 1985. The first respondent who is the original petitioner was born on 12 July 1952. The first respondent was appointed as a Lecturer on 25 August 1975 and would have attained the age of superannuation, which is sixty two years, in July 2014. The Principal of the Institution retired on 30 June 2011 after which, the first respondent was appointed as Officiating Principal, being the senior-most Lecturer in the Institution. Since the date of superannuation fell in the midst of the academic session, he was allowed to continue, till 30 June 2015. The Committee of Management addressed a letter to the petitioner on 3 June 2015, stating that he would superannuate on 30 June 2015 and directed him to hand over charge to the senior-most Lecturer, namely the appellant herein. That led to the filing of the writ petition in which the first respondent sought a mandamus to the effect that he was entitled to be continued on his post until 31 March 2016.

The basis on which the writ petition was filed was that the State Government had issued a Government Order on 15 October 2014 by which the academic session was changed to 1 April to 31 March instead and in place of 1 July to 30 June. The first respondent relied on the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Act of 1921. According to the first respondent, since he was due to retire on 30 June 2015, he would be entitled to continue until the end of the academic session on the ground that his retirement was during the midst of the academic session. The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, has granted an interim order to the effect that the first respondent would continue until 31 March 2016 following an earlier interim order in another case.

On 17 June 2015, the State Government amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations. The un-amended and amended regulations are extracted hereinbelow for convenience of reference:

Un-amended 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;sxkA

As a result of the amendment which has been brought about the academic session which commenced in July and was to end in June has now been altered so as to commence in April and to end on 31 March of the subsequent year. Under the unamended regulation, a provision was made as a result of which, a teacher who is to retire during the midst of the academic session would continue in service until the end of the academic session in order to ensure that the teaching of the students due to retirement of the teacher in the midst of the academic session is not disrupted. The purpose of the provision was noticed in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Nath Sahai v. Devendra Nath Dwivedi3.

In the present case, the first respondent attained the age of sixty two years in the month of July 2014. Under the unamended Regulation 21, since the date of retirement of the first respondent fell within the midst of the academic session, he was allowed to continue as a Lecturer until 30 June 2015. The first respondent continued on that basis until 30 June 2015. What the first respondent seeks, essentially is a further extension in service until 31 March 2016 which, in our opinion, would be impermissible. The benefit of such an extension under the amended regulation would clearly not be available to a teacher in the position of the first respondent who had already attained the age of superannuation prior to 1 April 2015. The first respondent had already availed of the continuance in service until the end of the academic session, which according to the unamended regulation, was to come to an end on 30 June 2015. The State Government by a Government Order dated 25 May 2015, clarified that such an employee would continue until 30 June 2015. In other words, the first respondent would not be entitled to a further extension in service until 31 March 2016.

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 allow the special appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9 July 2015.

In view of the aforesaid judgment, both the learned counsel fairly state that nothing further survives in the writ petition. The writ petition filed by the first respondent shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 20.7.2015

RKK/-

			    (Yashwant Varma, J)             (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)
 
Chief Justice's Court
 
Civil Misc. (Leave) Application No.230770 of 2015
 
In re:
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 492 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- Bhajan Lal Diwakar
 
Respondent :- Bani Singh Thakurela And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Bheem Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Yadav,P.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
 

 
	Leave is granted. 
 
	Application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
Order Date :- 20.7.2015
 
RKK/-
 

 
			    (Yashwant Varma, J)             (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)