Adarsh Bala Saxena vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 1545 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41569 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Adarsh Bala Saxena
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in the institution Sri Raghuveer Sahai Johari Adarsh Vidyapith Kanya Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bhoor, Bareilly. Her date of birth is 1.1.1953 and she attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 31.12.2014. She claims that she attained the age of superannuation in mid of the academic session and, therefore, she is entitle to continue till 31st March, 2016 in view of amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

The aforesaid Regulation 21 permits the teachers/staff of an institution to continue in service till the end of the month in which they attain the age of superannuation or in event their age of superannuation falls in the mid of the academic session to continue till the end of the existing academic session.

The academic session was previously notified to be from 1st July to 30th June of the next year but the same has been changed vide notification 15.10.2014 to be from 1st April to 31st March of the next year.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2014 she is only entitle to continue in service till the end of the existing academic session i.e. 31st March, 2015 only and not beyond that.

In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is entitle to continue till 31st March, 2016 is completely misconceived and not acceptable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon certain interim order wherein in similar circumstances by the interim orders the candidates have been permitted to continue till 31st March, 2016.

The said orders are of interim nature and do not constitute a binding precedent for deciding the petitions finally.

A similar controversy with regard to Assistant Teacher (Basic) in Writ - A No.41421 of 2015 was decided by me vide judgment and order dated 28.7.2015 considering a similar provision contained in Rule 29 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.It was held that the petitioners are not entitle to continue in service beyond 31st March i.e. end of the academic session in which he attains the age of superannuation.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.7.2015

Brijesh