Raghubir Singh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1992 Latest Caselaw 313 Del

JUDGMENT

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.

(1) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in 1956 and became Head-master in 1958. In 1971 he was promoted as a School Inspector and in 1990 as a Senior School Inspector Municipal Corporation of Delhi by resolution dated 3rd January,1984, copy of which is annexure P3, Book a decision to enhance the age of retirement of Delhi school teachers to 60 years from in years. It was specifically ordered that it would upon to teachers, including Lab. Asstts. and Librarians of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and would be effective from 3rd September, 1983.

(2) Some of the teachers or Head-masters, who had been promoted to the post of Inspector of Schools or Senior School Inspectors or having allied designation were not given the benefit of 60 years retirement age and they came to this Court and the earliest case decided by this Court was Civil Writ No. 1365 of 1984, Smt. Sheela Puri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, decided on 22nd May, 1985. It was held that such like incumbants, who are earlier teachers or Head-master, would also be entitled to the benefit of enhance- ment in retirement age. The aforesaid judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sheela Puri, . This Court kept on following the decision of the Sheela Puri's case (supra) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi kept on going to the Supreme Court. Another case related to Kumari Kanta Sharma. This Court granted relief in the same terms and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi went to the Supreme Court and in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 13386-87 of 1989, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kum. Kama Sharma, decided on 17th July, 1990, the Supreme Court passed the following order: "WE do not Find any ground for reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Smt. Sheela Puri . The special leave petition are dismisssed. No costs.

(3) Following the aforesaid decision, we are of view that the petitioner is clearly entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years, with all service benefits. The petitioner had been wrongly retired at the age of 58 years on '31st August, 1991. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be deemed to be in service until he attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 31st August, 1993 and would be entitled to all service benefits. including pay and allowances, which would have been admissible to him. if he had not been wrongly retired at the age of 58 years. The arrear of pay along with interest at the rate of 12 percent, from the date it fell due till payment, be paid to the petitioner within one month from the receipt of this order. Since none had appeared for the respondent, we would not burden it with costs.

(4) We may again indicate that we have mentioned in one of our earlier judgments, while imposing costs of Rs. 500.00 on the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to follow the judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court and should not retire the similarly situate persons until they attain the age of 60 years and if they will not follow the judgment of this Court in Sheela Puri's case (supra), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, we might impose higher costs on the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and may direct in future that this costs should be recovered from the officer, who is the in-charge of the department and is bound to follow the law and not to pass illegal orders.