R.P. Saxena vs Niepa And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 246 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. Petitioner was serving as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture. On 30.11.1979, he was appointed as Registrar on deputation by respondent No.1. In 1984, options were invited from employees who were serving on deputation with respondent No.1 for permanent absorption in the respondent/Institute. Petitioner exercised the option to be absorbed in the respondent/Institute and in public interest he was absorbed on permanent basis by the respondent. The Government of India conveyed the sanction of permanent absorption of the petitioner with the respondent No.1. It was stated in the letter sanctioning absorption that the detailed terms and conditions of permanent absorption of respondent No.1 would be issued separately. Prior to his permanent absorption, the respondent No.1/Institute issued an office note stating, inter alia, that the petitioner serving as Registrar on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.1979 was placed in the scale of Rs.1500-60-1800, which scale was revised to 1500-2000 with the approval of the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 21.3.1984 after having established the parity with the scales of pay for the post of Registrar in the Central Universities and having received the approval of the Government of India for the same vide their letter dated 2nd June, 1984. It was only after the petitioner was placed in the revised scale of Rs.1500-2000 and after his having been given parity with the post of Registrar in the Central Universities that he was requested to exercise his option to be absorbed as Registrar in the respondent No.1/Institute against the upgraded post of Registrar in the scale of Rs.1500-2000. A perusal of the letter, therefore, shows that at the time of absorption of the petitioner with respondent No.1, the post, which was held by the petitioner had already been given parity with the post of the Registrar in the Central Universities. The age of retirement of the Registrar in the Central Universities was 60 years but the petitioner was retired on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31.1.1991. This action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31.1.1991 has now been challenged by filing the present petition.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of regulations framed by respondent No.1, all those employees who were in the University Grants Commission scale of pay would have retired on attaining the age of 60 years and the action of the respondent in superannuating him at the age of 58 years was clearly illegal. Some of the rules and regulations, which are applicable to the case of the petitioner and on which reliance has been placed by the parties read as under:

4. Adoption

(1) Faculty members and other personnel of the Institute on University Grants Commission's grades of pay shall draw salary and allowances in such scales of pay as have been or will be prescribed by the University Grants Commission and be subject to such conditions of the service as may be laid down from time to time by University Grants Commission in the case of corresponding categories of personnel in Central Universities.

16. Retirement Age

The age of retirement of all the employees of the Institute shall be 58 years except in case of (a) faculty members and other personnel on University Grants Commission grades of pay in whose case 60 years has been prescribed by UGC for the corresponding posts in central universities and (b) (Group D) employees for whom the prescribed age of retirement under the Central Govt. Rules is 60 years.

25. Special Provision for Existing Employees

Every person holding a post under the Institute at the commencement of these regulations shall on such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed under the provisions of these regulations to the corresponding post in the First Schedule to be specified where ever necessary by the Director and shall draw the pay drawn by him immediately before such commencement.

3. In terms of regulations 4(1), faculty members and other personnel of the Institute on University Grants Commission (UGC) grades of pay shall draw pay and allowances in such scales of pay as have been prescribed by the University Grants Commission and be subject to such conditions of the service as may be laid down from time to time by the University Grants Commission in the case of the corresponding categories of personnel in Central Universities. In terms of regulation 16, the age of retirement of all the employees of the institute shall be 58 years except in the case of the faculty members and other personnel on University Grants Commission grades of pay in whose case the age of retirement was prescribed as 60 years. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was on the University Grants Commission grade of pay and was drawing the same pay as was applicable to the post of corresponding status, namely, the Registrar in Central Universities he was entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years and could not be retired on his attaining the age of 58 years. The reliance is also placed upon the Resolution dated 21.3.1984 passed by the Executive Committee of respondent No.1. According to this resolution the existing scale for the post of the Registrar was upgraded from 1500-1800 to 1500-2000 to bring the same at par with the existing scale for the post of the Registrar in Central Universities and that the scale would be revised suitably as and when the scale for the post of Registrar in the Central Universities was changed to maintain the parity.

4. Intention of the respondent in framing the aforesaid regulations and passing the resolution dated 21.3.1984 was clear that the terms and conditions of service of the registrar of the respondent including his pay and age of retirement would be the same as of the registrars of Central Universities. The University Grants Commission in its letter dated 11th June, 1976 had observed that the age of retirement of the non-academic staff of the Central Universities was considered at the meeting of the Committee of the Vice-Chancellors and on the recommendations of the Committee the age of retirement of the non-academic staff of the Central Universities was fixed at 60 years with no provision for further extension. It is thus apparent that in terms of regulations 4 and 16 of the Regulations of respondent No.1 an employee of respondent No.1 who was on the University Grants Commission scale of pay was entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years. The Regulations about the retirement of an employee at the age of 58 years would not apply to those employees who were on University Grants Commission scale of pay.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent, however, is that the recommendations of the University Grants Commission for increasing the age of retirement of the non-teaching staff on the University Grants Commission scale of pay was never adopted by the respondent No.1/Institute and consequently the resolution and the order passed by the respondent retiring the petitioner from service on his attaining the age of 58 years was strictly in accordance with the regulations of the respondent/Institute. It is submitted that the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of 58 years was not entitled to any relief in this petition.

6. As already observed by this Court, a plain reading of Regulation 4 and 16 clearly show that the personnel employed with respondent No.1 on University Grants Commission scales of pay could retire only on attaining the age of 60 years. Not only the resolution dated 21.3.1984 passed by respondent No.1 but also the letter dated 9.7.1984 written by the respondent to the petitioner calling his option for permanent absorption in the service of respondent No.1 clearly show that the petitioner was granted the University Grants Commission scale of pay in the post of the Registrar so as to keep the same at parity with the post of the Registrar in the Central Universities. That being the position, I am clearly of the view that the petitioner was entitled to serve respondent No.1/Institute up to the age of 60 years and the resolution passed by the respondent on 3rd January, 1991 and consequent order passed thereafter on January 18, 1991 retiring the petitioner on 31.1.1991 on his attaining the age of 58 years was illegal. I, accordingly, quash the aforesaid resolution dated January 3, 1991 as also the consequent order of retirement dated January 18, 1991. The order dated 11.5.1992 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner also stands quashed. The petitioner having already attained the age of 60 years, cannot be directed to be reinstated in service, however, since he has been denied right to serve the respondent/Institute for 2 years, he will be entitled to all the benefits including pay and allowances as also pensionary benefits, if any, to which he would otherwise have been entitled if he had remained in service for these two years. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

7. In the facts of this case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.