Allahabad High Court
Amar Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 3 November, 2015
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
AFR
Court No. - 10
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6246 of 2015
Petitioner :- Amar Bahadur Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Meenakshi Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Head learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the opposite party no. 1-Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow declining the claim of the petitioner to continue in service till 31.03.2016 i.e. end of academic session.
The petitioner's date of birth is 20.07.1950. He was appointed as a teacher in the opposite party no. 5-College and ultimately came to be appointed as Principal. As per Regulation 21 of the relevant Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, the age of superannuation is/was 62 years. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 19.07.2012.
However, in view of the provisions contained in the said Regulation as existing at the relevant time, as, the date of his superannuation fell in mid-academic session i.e. between 2nd July to 30th June of the succeeding year, therefore, he was allowed to continue till the end of academic session i.e. 30.06.2013. In the meantime, on 23.08.2012 the petitioner was given National/ State Teacher Award. Therefore, he was given an extension in services for two years vide order dated 14.06.2013 in keeping with the policy of the State Government dated 06.05.1982. This extension of services was given w.e.f 01.07.2013, thus the said extension was operative till 30.06.2015.
On 30.12.2014 a Government Order was issued providing the benefit of extension in services to the National/State Teacher Awardees up to the age of 65 years after attaining the age of superannuation. The said benefit was available even to those teachers who had been granted the two years extension of services under the Government Order dated 06.05.1982 such as the petitioner subject to the condition mentioned in para 2 thereto i.e. their medical and mental fitness.
The petitioner attained the age of 65 years on 19.07.2015, however, according to him as in the interregnum the definition of academic session as contained in Regulation 21 under went a change/amendment vide notification dated 12.06.2015 and instead of the academic session being 2nd July to 30th June of the succeeding year it was changed to 1st April to 31st March of the succeeding year, therefore, according to him, the petitioner even after attaining the age of 65 years was entitled to continue till the end of academic session i.e. 31.03.2015 as his age of superannuation fell in mid-academic session 2015-16 i.e. on 19.07.2015. In fact, according to him, he was granted such extension of services till the end of academic session along with others vide Government Order dated 24.06.2015. However, in the meantime, he filed a Writ Petition No. 2954(SS) of 2015 claiming such extension till 31.03.2016 on the ground referred herein above which is said to have been disposed of on 27.05.2015 with a direction to the State Government to take a decision in his case in terms of Government Order dated 30.12.2014. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, the matter of the petitioner was scrutinized by the State Government and it was found that he had already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 19.07.2012 and as his date of superannuation fell in mid-academic session 2012-13, therefore, he had been allowed to continue till the end of the academic session i.e. 30.06.2013 in terms of the then existing Regulations 21 and the definition of academic session which was prevalent at that time. He was given a further extension of two years vide order dated 14.06.2013 in terms of the G.O. Dated 06.05.1982 as amended from time to time, after availing benefit of extension of services till the end of academic session, i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2015. Consequently, having availed the benefit of continuance till the end of the academic session based on the then existing Regulation 21 now the petitioner can not claim the said benefit again on the basis of amended Regulation 21 more so as 65 years was the maximum age up to which such extension of services can be granted in terms of G.O. Dated 30.12.2014. The petitioner claims benefit of the Government Order dated 25.05.2015 in support of his claim for continuous till 31.03.2016. He contents that but for the writ petition filed by him and the decision therein, he would have continued till 31.03.2016 in view of the decision of the State Government dated 24.06.2015.
The Court is not persuaded by the argument of Shri H. G. S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner.
The age of superannuation i.e. 62 years was attained by the petitioner on 19.07.2012. The said date of superannuation does not get changed by any amendment in the Regulation or any other Government Order annexed with the writ petition. After attaining the age of superannuation he was given the benefit of the then existing Regulation 21 for continuance in service till the end of academic session i.e. upto 30.06.2013. In the meantime, he received National/State Teacher Award thereafter entitling him for extension of services of two years in terms of the policy of the State Government dated 06.05.1982 as amended by the subsequent Government Order dated 04.12.1986 and 23.10.1991, which itself was an exception carved out to the date of retirement as mentioned in the then existing Regulation 21.
The petitioner was granted extension of two years vide order dated 14.06.2013 w.e.f. 01.7.2013 in terms of the Government Order dated 06.05.1982, 04.12.1986 and 23.10.1991 i.e. after taking into consideration the benefit of the academic session ending on 30.06.2013 and calculating the period of two years from 01.07.2013. Thus, he was entitled to continued till 30.06.2015.
In the meantime, the Government Order dated 30.12.2014 came into force following the circular of the Central Board of Secondary Education providing extension of service of National/State Teacher Awardees up to the age of 65 years after attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, under this Government Order dated 30.12.2014, the petitioner was entitled to continue up to the age of 65 years which he attained on 19.07.2015. However, he tried to take advantage of the change in the academic session brought about by the notification dated 12.06.2015 and the change in Regulation 21 in this regard by which the academic session which was earlier from 2nd July to 30th June of the succeeding year was changed to 1st April to 31st March of the succeeding year i.e. for the academic session 2015-16. Consequent to the notification dated 12.06.2015 the academic session commenced on 01.04.2015 and is to end on 31.03.2016.
The contention of the petitioner is that as he attained the age of superannuation on 19.07.2015, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the amended Regulation 21 so as to continue till 31.03.2016 which is clearly misconceived. The petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation on 19.07.2012. The amendment in Regulation 21 does not change either the age of superannuation or the date of the petitioner's superannuation. The date 19.07.2015 is not the petitioner's date of superannuation but it is the date on which he completed the maximum period of 65 years permissible under the Government Order dated 30.12.2014.
There is nothing in the Government Order dated 30.12.2014 or the Regulation 21 as amended on 12.06.2015 so as to persuade this Court to accept the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to continue till 31.03.2016 even after attaining the age of 65 years on 19.07.2015..
The age of superannuation continues to be 62 years. The benefit of continuous till the end of academic session is now available till 31.03.2016 based on the age of superannuation. This amendment does not help the petitioner, who has already attained the age of superannuation 19.07.2012 ie. prior to 01.04.2015. The exception carved out in the amended Regulation can at best accommodate the Government Order dated 30.12.2014 granting extension of services to the National/State Teacher Awardees up to 65 years but it does not mean that if the date of attaining 65 years falls in mid-academic session then again the petitioner should be allowed to continue till the end of the academic session i.e. 31.03.2015. The benefit of continuance till the end of academic session is available only once which has already been availed by the petitioner in the year 2012-2013. Thereafter, his services have been extended firstly under the Government Order dated 06.05.1982 as amended from time to time and thereafter under the Government Order dated 30.12.2014. He is not entitled to continue in service after attaining the age of 65 years as it is the maximum limit up to which such a teacher can continue in services. The amended Regulation 21 does not in any manner help the cause of the petitioner. The earlier Government Order dated 24.06.2015, as far as it relates to the petitioner, was erroneously passed under some mistake of fact and law. The same now has been rectified by means of the impugned order dated 30.09.2015.
The reasons mentioned in the impugned order do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.11.2015 (Rajan Roy)
R.K.P.
