Ram Singh Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 158 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ram Singh Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 7 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
              HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
                HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J

                  SPECIAL APPEAL No.59 of 2021

Ram Singh Chauhan                                                  ...Appellant
                             Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others                                   ...Respondents

                                    With
                 SPECIAL APPEAL No.159 of 2021

State of Uttarakhand & others                                      ...Appellants
                                   Versus
Rohitashav Kunwar & others                                      ...Respondents



Counsel for the appellant           :       Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel in
                                            SPA No.59 of 2021

Counsel for State of Uttarakhand            Mr. D.S.    Bora,   learned   Standing
                                            Counsel.

Counsel for respondent no.4                 Mr. Mehul Joshi, learned counsel
                                            holding brief of Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt,
                                            learned counsel.

Counsel for respondent no.5                 Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel in
                                            SPA No.59 of 2021.

JUDGMENT :

(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) By these intra court appeals, appellants have challenged the judgment dated 25.01.2021, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.768 of 2020. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by writ petitioner Sri Rohitashav Kunwar, claiming benefit of two years extension in service on account of "Shailesh Matiyani State Education Award" conferred upon him, was allowed. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

"13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.05.2020 is hereby quashed. Mandamus is issued to the respondent authority to grant the benefit of extension of two years of service to the petitioner being the State Awardee of Shailesh Matiyani State Education Award-

2017 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interpretation given by learned Single Judge to the government order dated 22.08.2007 is not correct; as per the government order, benefit of two years extension in service is available only to such teachers, who are yet to attain age of superannuation, while Sri Rohitashav Kunwar had attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2019 and "Shailesh Matiyani State Education Award" was conferred upon him on 23.10.2019, however, learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the government order dated 22.08.2007 and arrived at the conclusion that benefit of two years extension would be available even if such award is conferred upon a Teacher after his/her attaining age of superannuation. Thus, the controversy revolves around interpretation of government order dated 22.08.2007.

3. Perusal of the said government order reveals that another government order dated 29.08.2005 was earlier issued on the subject, which is on record as Annexure no.14 to the writ petition. The said government order provides that any Teacher, who has been conferred with National/State award, would be entitled to extension in service up to two years, provided he is physically and mentally fit and his work and conduct has been found to be satisfactory.

4. Since the said government order was silent on the question whether benefit of extension in service would be available to such Teachers also who were

conferred award after attaining age of superannuation and queries on this aspect were being raised by the departmental authorities, therefore, State Government issued another government order on 22.08.2007, which is clarificatory in nature. Paragraph 2 of the said government order in so many words provides that the benefit of extension of two years service would be available only to such Teachers who were conferred National/State award while they were continuing in service and the said benefit would not be available to a teacher after his/her superannuation.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner relies upon the last sentence of para 2 of Government Order dated 22.08.2007 for contending that the benefit of extension in service is also available to a teacher, who is given extension till the end of academic session. The last sentence of para 2 is reproduced below:-

"सेवािनवृि� / स�ांत लाभ के प�ात् पुरस्कार �ा� करने वाले अध्यापक को 02 वषर्

क� अित�र� सेवा का लाभ अनुमन्य नह� होगा"

6. The last sentence cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read with para 2 of Government Order dated 22.08.2007. The earlier sentence of para 2 makes it clear that benefit of extension in service would be available only to such teachers, who were conferred award while they were continuing in service.

7. The expression "continue in service" used in para 2 makes it clear that a teacher, who has completed age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, if receives an award thereafter, will not be entitled to extension in service.

The last sentence appears to have been added to emphasize the aforesaid policy that teacher getting award after retirement will not be entitled for extension in service. The expression "सेवािनवृि� / स�ांत लाभ के प�ात्" used in

last sentence, therefore, would mean that a person continuing on extension after retirement, if gets an award will not be entitled to further extension in service on account of award.

8. The teachers serving in Government Schools/Colleges are State employees. Their age of superannuation is fixed by statutory provision, contained in Rule 56 of Financial Handbook (Vol. II, Para II to IV), which reads as under:-

["56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:

Provided that a Government servant, whose date of birth is the first day of a month, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years:

Provided further that a Government servant, who has attained the age of fifty-eight years on or before the first day of the November, 2001 and is on extension in service, shall retire from service on expiry of his extended period of service.

(a-1) No Government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years:

Provided that a Government servant dealing with budget work or working as a full time member of a committee which is to be wound up within a short period of time may be granted, by the Government, extension of service for a period not exceeding three months in public interest:

Provided further that a Government servant holding highly specialised technical job whose replacement has not been possible to be arranged before his retirement even after efforts made in this regard, may

be granted extension of service up to the age of sixty- two years, if such extension is unavoidable in public interest and the grounds for such extension are recorded in writing:

Note-Each case for extension of service under this clause shall be put up for orders to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary.

(a-2) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in clause (a) or clause (a-1) of this rule, a Government servant may, if considered necessary, in public interest, so to do, be granted extension of service up to the age of sixty-two years with the prior approval of the Cabinet:

Provided that in the cases of extension in service under clauses (a-1) and (a-2) of this rule, Government shall have the right to terminate the extension of service before expiry of such extension by giving a notice in writing of not less than three months in the case of a permanent or, of one month in the case of a temporary Government servant, or pay and allowances in lieu of such notice."

9. Retirement of a teacher during mid academic session adversely affects studies of students, therefore, State Government framed a policy of permitting a teacher retiring during mid academic session to serve till the end of academic session, wherever necessary; however, in that case, the concerned teacher is treated to be re-employed and the service, rendered during such re-employment, does not entitle him to monetary benefits except salary, therefore, the contention that a teacher, who is re-employed after attaining age of superannuation should also be treated as continuing in service for benefit of Government Policy contained in Government Order dated 22.08.2007, cannot be accepted.

10. This relevant aspect appears to have been overlooked by learned Single Judge. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed in WPSS No. 768 of 2020.

11. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that pursuant to the impugned judgment, his client served for some time and he was also paid salary for the said period. It is therefore provided that salary paid for the period during which writ petitioner served pursuant to the impugned judgment, shall not be recovered.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt:07th May, 2025 NR/