Delhi High Court
Ragubir Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 19 January, 1995
Author: A D Singh
Bench: A D Singh
ORDER
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. The petitioner, who is a senior school inspector, received a notice dated October 18, 1994 (Annexure P-12 to the writ petition) from respondent No. 1 informing him that he would retire from Municipal services w.e.f. December 31, 1994 on attaining the age of 58 years.
2. The petitioner challenged this notice in the present writ petition on the ground that his retirement age, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Smt. Sheela Puri , was 60 years.
3. This Court on December 28, 1994 stayed the operation of order dated October 18, 1994. Thereafter the petitioner was served with an order dated January 11, 1995 transferring him to M. C. Primary School, Geeta Colony, Block No. 6, 2nd Shift, Shahdara South Zone as in charge with view to raising and improving the standard of the school.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for transfer given in the order dated January 11, 1995 is merely a camouflage and actually the petitioner was transferred on the ground that he had field a writ petition challenging his retirement. He submits that all those persons who have received the retirement notice at the age of 58 years and who have field writ petitions are being posted as in charge teachers notwithstanding the fact that these posts are of a lower status. I have perused the file produced by the learned counsel for the respondent pursuant to my order dated January 18, 1995. The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. The note file specifically mentions that number of A. E. Os. after the retirement age have been seeking extension up to the age of 60 years and all those A. E. Os. who have filed writ editions have been posted as in charge teachers at various places after their date of superannuation viz. 58 years. In this regard the note of the Administrative Officer (Education) to the extent relevant reds as follows :
"..... Meanwhile, on 30th December, 1994, he obtained stay orders from the Court against his retirement on the basis of the fact that he was a teacher who like in all other Court cases deserved extension beyond 58 years up to the age of 60 years. According to various court judgments, a number of A. E. Os. after the retirement age have been seeking extension up to 60 years on the same grounds and all these A. E. Os. have been posted as in charge teacher at various places after their date of superannuation. From the date of their superannuation, the A. E. Os. ceased to be on administrative posts as the extension is on the grounds of being a teacher".
5. The aforesaid note was approved by the Director (Pry. Education) and Additional Commissioner (Education) on January 10, 1995. While approving the note the following was also stated :
"Kindly also refer to officer order dated 7th August, 1992 (page 78/C) issued in compliance of the approval of the Commissioner and also the Court orders regarding posting of the officials, seeking extension, in M. C. Model School in order to improve the standard of Education in these Schools."
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that many of the persons who were given notice of retirement at the age of 58 years had field writ petitions and all those petitioners were posted as in charge Teachers in order to improve the standard of the schools. He also submitted that in earlier writ petitions no stay was granted in regard to the transfer of the petitions. Mr. Buchhar, however, admits that this note was not produced earlier in any of the writ petitions.
7. Having regard to the statement contained in the note produced by the respondent I am prima facie of the opinion that the transfer of the petitioner has taken place because of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of a writ petition and an ad interim order staying the impugned action has been granted. The petitioner cannot be penalised by the authorities just because he has approached the Court of law for vindication of his rights, as otherwise it would hamper and thwart the administration of justice. Dignity and Majesty of the Court cannot be allowed to be eroded by the authorities who are required to implement the orders of the Court. Transfer order smacks of vindictiveness and appears to have been made in colourable exercise of power.
8. Having regard to the above discussion the operation of the order dated January 11, 1995 is stayed.
9. With these observations the applications stands disposed of.
