Gauhati High Court
Dr. Subhash Chandra Singh vs Assam University on 10 September, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010016242016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3066/2016
DR. SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH
S/O LT. SABHA NARAIN SINGH HOUSE NO. 74, LANE -1, LINK ROAD,
SILCHAR P.O. LINK ROAD, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM PIN - 788005.
VERSUS
ASSAM UNIVERSITY, SILCHAR and ANR.
REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, DORGAKONA CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN - 788011.
2:THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
ASSAM UNIVERSITY DORGAKONA CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN - 788011
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B BANERJEE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 10-09-2021
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SC Keyal,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 being the authorities under the
Assam University, Silchar.
2. The petitioner, who was serving as a Professor of Law in the Assam
University, retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on
Page No.# 2/3
11.02.2016. By referring to paragraph 9 of the Statute 27 of the respondent
University on Service conditions, Salary Scales, Classifications and Qualifications
of Teachers, the petitioner makes a claim that as per the proviso thereof, if the
date of superannuation of a teacher falls at any time during the academic
session, the teacher shall continue in service and retire on the last day of that
academic session or at the end of the month, whichever is later. According to
the petitioner, although he had retired from service on 11.02.2016, the
academic session of that year came to an end on 30.06.2016 and therefore he
ought to have retired on 30.06.2016. As he had already been retired from
service, the petitioner claims the financial benefits of remaining service for the
aforesaid period.
3. Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent Assam University on the
other hand refers to the minutes of the 100 th meeting of the Executive Council
of the Assam University held on 03.01.2015, wherein in paragraph EC:100:01-
15:66.4, the provision of Statute 27 stood amended by providing that the age of
retirement would now be 65 years, but with the provision that if the date of
superannuation of a teacher falls at any time during the month, the teacher
continues in service and would retire at the end of the month. According to Mr.
SC Keyal, learned counsel upon the amendment to Statute 27 having coming
into effect, the earlier benefit under the un-amended Statute 27 that the
teacher to retire at the end of the academic session is no longer available. As
the petitioner had retired on 11.02.2016, the provision of the amended Statute
27 was in force and therefore he was rightly retired at the end of the month in
which his date of superannuation otherwise had fallen.
4. Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon clause 6
of the University Statute which provides that every Ordinance made by the
Page No.# 3/3
Executive Council, shall be submitted to the Visitor within two weeks from the
date of its adoption and the Visitor has the power within four weeks thereof to
suspend the operation of any such Ordinance or to withdraw the Ordinance and
his decision shall be final on the aspect.
5. By referring to clause 6 of the Statute, it is the submission of Mr. M Dutta,
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Ordinance brought in by the 100 th
meeting of the Executive Council of the Assam University held on 03.01.2015,
had not yet been given its effect and therefore, the petitioner would be
governed by the un-amended Statute 27 providing that his date of retirement
would be the last day of the academic session.
6. We are unable to accept the said contention of Mr. M Dutta, learned
counsel for the petitioner from the point of view that clause 6 of the Statute
gives the power to the Visitor to either suspend or withdraw a operation. The
very expression 'to suspend or to withdraw the Ordinance ' would give the
indication that the Ordinance was already brought into effect or otherwise there
would be no requirement to either suspend or withdraw it.
7. From the said point of view, we are to understand that the amended
Statute 27 as per the 100 th meeting of the Executive Council of the Assam
University held on 03.01.2015 had been brought into effect and was in force
when the date of retirement of the petitioner fell on 11.02.2016.
8. From such point of view, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
