Charanjit Singh Nischal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2003 Latest Caselaw 871 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.-

Rule.

1. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as a TGT on 20.8.1953. In view of coming into force Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, the services of the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Education was the subject governed under the aegis of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 6.4.1967. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner was promoted to the post of School Inspector on 12.1968. In 1970 all Middle and Higher Secondary Schools under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were transferred to the Delhi Administration. However, petitioner continued with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and performed his duties as Inspector of Schools. Petitioner was retired on 23.8.1979 after completing the age of 58 years. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been retired at the age of 58 years as the petitioner's age of retirement was 60 years. Though the petitioner was promoted as School Inspector he was teacher for the purposes of retirement of age. My attention has been drawn to Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of transfer of building, staff, accessories of the Higher Secondary Schools and Middle Schools of Delhi Municipal Corporation to the Delhi Administration. The same is as under:

"The present age limit for retirement of the officers, teachers and the other employees in the Municipal Corporation is 60 years. This age limit of 60 years may be retained after absorption provided the Govt. of India accords their approval."

2. The Government of India accorded its approval vide letter dated 18.1.1973, which is at page 44 of the paper book. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its Resolution No. 666 on 6.11.78 clarified that the service condition of teachers, officers and other employees transferred to the Delhi Administration along with school w.e.f. 1.7.1970 be accorded to the extent that the age limit for retirement of officers and other employees will be 58 years and in case of teachers and class IV servants it will be 60 years.

3. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was not a teacher as he was promoted as a School Inspector, therefore, he could not have been granted the superannuation at the age 60 years and the Municipal Corporation has rightly superannuated him when he attained the age of 58 years. Another argument put forth by the Counsel for the respondent is that the accord was granted to the employees who were absorbed by the Delhi Administration subject to the observance of rules and instructions etc. laid down in this behalf by the Government of India from time to time.

4. I need not go into the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the respondent as all these contentions were raised before the Division Bench which heard the matter, Smt. Sheila Puri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1985 (2) SLR. Division Bench of this Court in Sheila Pun's case (supra) held as under:

'We think that this problem cannot be solved by mere reference to the affidavit. The petitioner was a teacher. She was a Headmistress of a school then she became a School Inspectress, then became a Senior School Inspectress. If she is a Senior School Inspectress, does she cease to be a teacher ? Does she become an officer and not a teacher? It seems to us that if you are a teacher to start with, you remain a teacher even if you are promoted to a post which involves supervision of the schools rather than teaching in the schools. It would be a strange result that a Headmistress promoted to the post of School Inspectress should have a lower retirement age. The position set out in the Resolution of 1970, i.e., Resolution No. 127 did not make any distinction between teachers and School Inspectresses. We fail to understand how two sets of persons belonging to the same class should have different retiring age if they are promoted or not promoted. Also, when some persons of that class are transferred to the Delhi Administration on the understanding that they would retain their retiring age of 60, we fail to understand why the remaining persons should not retain the same retiring age of 60. Also, there seems to be some confusion as to who is a teacher? If the interpretation of the Municipal Corporation is accepted it leads to a number of awkward complications. The promotion post of Headmistress is that of School Inspectress. Normally, seniors are promoted and they are not far from the age of retirement. So, it would be strange result that when a Headmistress is promoted, she would immediately retire whereas if she remained Headmistress, she would retire at 60. This result could not have been desired. Furthermore, the word 'teacher' means a person in the teaching profession. The entry of such persons into service would normally be in lower grades. They would be promoted from say Assistant Teacher to Teacher and then Vice-Principal, Principal or Headmistress, and so on. They would then be promoted to the post of Inspector and there may be further posts like Senior Inspectors and so on. We cannot imagine an Inspector to Schools not being a teacher. A very concept of an Inspector is to see that the teaching is conducted in accordance with some standard practice and the progress of students is as desired. An Inspector or Inspectress must, therefore, be a teacher. Such a person does not cease to be a teacher by becoming an Inspector. An Inspector's job is not that of looking after the up-keep of the school, but to see that the teaching is done properly. We are of the view that such a person would remain a teacher even after promotion. No doubt, the Resolution states that officers would retire at 58 and teachers at 60, presumably by officers are meant non-teachers employed in other branches of the Corporation. There is a difference between the administrative line in the Corporation and the teaching line. We would prefer to hold that the petitioner continues to be a teacher in spite of being promoted to the post of School Inspectress. The real meaning of the Resolution is that persons employed on the teaching side, or educational department of the Municipal Corporation have a retiring age of 60, whereas others have a retiring age of 58. Referring again to the judgment cited at the Bar, Shri B.N. Chaudhary v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., herein it seems to have been accepted that the retiring age was 58, we think that is not a precedent, because the petition was dismissed in liming without a careful examination of the Resolution Nos. 127 of 1970 and 666 of 1978. We do not think that we are bound by a petition dismissed in liming.'

5. I do not find force in the arguments of Counsel for the respondent that the age of 60 years although applicable in the case of other teachers of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in view of fundamental rules of the Central Government not providing age of retirement to 60 years shall be applicable. If in the case of other teachers, the age of 60 years has been permitted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the respondent cannot discriminate the petitioner on the ground that the age of retirement as per Government of India Rules was 58 years.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court, I am. of the considered view that the petitioner was a teacher and even after becoming School Inspector he remained a teacher. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been retired at the age of 60 years.

7. Following the ratio of Sheila Puri's case (supra), I hold that petitioner was entitled to be retired at the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years. However, as the petitioner has retired, a direction is issued to the respondent to give all the consequential benefits including salary to petitioner taking into consideration the age of retirement as 60 years. The same be given within three months.

Writ petition is allowed.

Rule is made absolute.