Dr. Murli Shyam Pathak vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 6324 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 635 of 2019
 

 
Appellant :- Dr. Murli Shyam Pathak
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Chandra Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

This appeal is barred by limitation from 16 days, ignoring the same, we have looked into merits of the case.

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 24th May, 2019 passed by learned single Bench in Writ-A No.50142 of 2017.

The case of the appellant-petitioner is that being 2nd April, 2018 as his date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, the same should have been extended for the term of educational session in light of different government orders passed by the competent authorities time to time.

Learned single Bench as per learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter in correct perspective.

We do not find any merit with the argument advanced.

The appellant-petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 2nd April, 2015. However, looking to the outstanding services rendered by him, the services were extended for a term of three years. It would be appropriate to state that the extension of the service of the appellant-petitioner was not made immediately on the date he attained the age of superannuation but on completion of educational session of the academic year 2014-15. After completing the period of three years of extension, the appellant-petitioner acquired the age of superannuation on 2nd April, 2018 but was retired on last date of the month concerned i.e. 30th April, 2018. The Government Order dated 24th August, 2017 that is quoted in the judgment impugned by learned single Bench in quite unambiguous terms specifies that on completion of extension period of service the incumbent is required to be retired from service on the last date of the month concerned. The order aforesaid has been adhered by the respondents.

The argument advanced by learned counsel that the decision taken under the order aforesaid is bad too is of no consequence as it is for the employer to see upto what period extension is required to be given.

True it is, in educational institutions the provision with regard to continuing a teacher till completion of the academic session is made looking to the need of the students and further to have continuity in teaching by a same teacher. However, that analogy is not required to be applied if the employer is otherwise satisfied that after extension no such requirement shall be satisfied.

For the reasons given above, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Bench. The appeal, hence is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

Bhaskar

(Vivek Varma, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)