Jitendra Singh Naruka vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4675 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                        Date of decision: 7th August, 2012
+                         W.P.(C) No. 6242/2011

%        JITENDRA SINGH NARUKA                    ....Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. R.P. Luthra & Mr. Saurabh
                               Luthra, Advs.
                                   Versus
    UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.               ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv. for R-1.
                           Mr. Amitesh Kumar & Mr. Ravikant,
                           Advs for UGC.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 22nd October, 2009 of the respondent University of Delhi retiring the petitioner (employed as Director of Physical Education) on attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years and seeks a mandamus to allow the petitioner to continue in service of the respondent University until he attains the age of 65 years. The petition also impugns the amended Ordinance XXVII - Age of Retirement of Staff, posting the Director of Physical Education in the list issued vide Notification dated 16th October, 2009. The petition was admitted for hearing. CM No.8409/2012 was filed by the petitioner for early hearing pleading that he was completing even 65 years of age on 31 st July, 2012 and that the matter was covered by the judgment dated 18 th May, 2012 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7939/2011 titled Damayanti V. Tambay Vs. Union of India which was allowed. The counsels have been heard.

W.P.(C) No. 6242/2011

2. We have in our judgment in Damayanti V. Tambay (supra) directed the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), respondent in that case to re- examine exclusion of Directors of Physical Education from the benefit of enhancement of superannuation age accorded to teachers and in the light of the discussions contained therein, in as much as we had not found any justification in the reasons given for denying the benefit of age enhancement to Directors of Physical Education.

3. The respondent University is similarly placed as JNU and the counsel for the respondent University has been unable to point out any difference.

4. We accordingly allow this petition by similarly directing the respondent University. The matter shall be considered and fresh decision shall be taken in terms of our judgment in Damayanti V. Tambay within a period of two months from today. Needless to state that if the age is enhanced, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

5. Though we had awarded costs to the petitioner in Damayanti V. Tambay but since the present petition is disposed of merely following that judgment, no costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AUGST 7, 2012 pp..

W.P.(C) No. 6242/2011