Allahabad High Court
Syed Habib Ali vs Union Of India Through Its Secy. ... on 2 January, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:160
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2001179 of 2011
Petitioner :- Syed Habib Ali
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Its Secy. Ministry Of Human Resource
Counsel for Petitioner :- G.C.Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.S.G
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 5.
2. Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned Additional Solicitor General of India now Deputy Solicitor General of India.
3. In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite party nos.3, 4 and 6 stand dispensed with.
4. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties not to retire petitioner as teacher in Shia P. G. College, Lucknow till he attained superannuation age of 65 years. Further prayer has been made for direction to opposite parties to take appropriate steps against opposite party nos.2 and 4 including withdrawal of 80% financial assistance for not implementing the 6th Pay Commission report and the recommendation's of 'Chaddha Committee' in toto which was duly accepted vide Government order dated 31.12.2008.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner clearly submits that due to passage of time, both prayers have however become infructuous since petitioner has now already attained the age of 65 years.
6. He submits that initially the dispute was pertaining to extension of services of petitioner as a teacher with the Shia P.G. College, Lucknow till attaining the age of superannuation of 65 years. It is submitted that a similar dispute had been agitated before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which passed interim protection regarding status quo to be maintained. The said order was followed in the present case as well by grant of interim protection dated 30.06.2011 whereby benefits of interim protection granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court was extended to petitioner.
7. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the aforesaid dispute being agitated before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in other Civil Appeals No. 5527-5543 of 2013, Jagdish Prasad Sharma versus State of Bihar and others was decided vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2013 whereby claim of continuance in service up till the age of 65 years was rejected. It is submitted that however protection was provided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to the extent that persons who continued to work on the basis of interim orders passed by that Court or any other Court would not be denied the service benefits of the aforesaid period.
8. Learned Counsel has also adverted to order dated 24.10.2013 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 58263 of 2013; Dr. Shiv Singh and 3 others versus State of U.P. and others and other connected matters which has been disposed of in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in following manner:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners retired as Readers, Lecturer/Associate Professor/Associate Professor/Reader. They claimed that their age of retirement should be 65 years while the claim of the State Government was that the age of retirement is 62 years. Matter went upto the Apex Court. In Civil Appeal Nos.5527-5543 of 2013, Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and in other connected appeals arising from the State of U.P., the Apex Court vide order dated 17.07.2013 has held that the age of retirement is 62 years and the claim of the petitioners that the age of retirement should be 65 years has been rejected. Before the Apex Court, it was also contended that some of the teachers, Professors, Readers etc. worked on the basis of the interim order after 62 years and, therefore, they are also entitled for the benefit of service. In respect of such claim, the Apex Court observed that "However, persons, who have continued to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners worked after the age of 62 years on the basis of the interim order thus are entitled for the salary for the period during which they have worked in view of the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in view of the direction of the Apex Court, the petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period during which they worked in view of the interim order of the Apex Court but their post retiral benefits will be calculated on the basis of the salary drawn by the petitioners on the date when they have been superannuated after attaining the age of 62 years.
We have considered the rival submissions.We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners as well learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period, during which they have worked in view of the interim order granted by any Court or by the Apex Court even after attaining the age of 62 years but their post retiral benefits shall be calculated on the basis of salary drawn when the petitioners attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 62 years. Respondents nos.2, 3 and 6 are directed to make the payment to the petitioners after necessary verification, within a period of two months as directed above from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order in accordance to law.
Further it is observed that we find that number of writ petitions are being filed for seeking the aforesaid direction.
In view of the above, we may observe that above direction may also apply in case of similarly situated persons and such persons instead of approaching this Court, may place our order before the authority concerned and the authority concerned is directed to comply with aforesaid direction after verification."
9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and perusal of material on record, it does appear that grievance of petitioner was quite similar to the one which was agitated before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and has been followed by the Division Bench referred to hereinabove.
10. Learned counsel has drawn attention to letter dated 21.10.2014 issued by the college in question indicating the fact that in terms of interim protection granted by this Court, petitioner has actually worked in the institution as indicated in the Attendance Register from 19.07.2011 till 23.08.2012.
11. In view of aforesaid un-rebutted document, petitioner is held to be entitled to the benefit that has been granted by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2013 which shall also apply upon the petitioner.
12. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.1.2024
Subodh/-
