Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 156 (GAU)

Prabir Kumar Dutta Gupta v. State of Tripura

2000-04-26

M.L.SINGHAL

body2000
Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. UB Saha, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. TD Majumder, learned Addl Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is disposed of finally. 3. The petitioner Shri Prabir Dutta Gupta served as Reader in the BB Evening College, Agartala. He was to retire on 31st July, 1999. Under Rule 9 of the Govt notification extending UGC Scales 1996 to the College Teacher of Tripura (in short UGC Scales, 1996), the petitioner's case for extension in service was considered. The respondents have not allowed extension to the petitioner, the petitioner has grievances against the same. By order dated 28th July, 1999, it was ordered by this Court that the petitioner will continue as Reader BB Evening College till further orders but for the period after 31 st July 99 no salary will be paid to him. 4. The ground for refusal to extension of the petitioner service is that the petitioner is running a Travelling Agency, namely, M/s Laxmi Travels in the name of his wife though prohibited by Rule 15 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. There were allegations of black marketing in purchase and sale tickets in the office of the said agency, the petitioner being a party to it, vigilance enquiry has been registered against him, a criminal case under section 409/465/ 468 and 474IPC has been registered and the same is pending in the Court. The Vigilance Department has not given clearance. 5. It is relevant to reproduce Rule 9 of the UGC Rules, 1996, which runs as follows: “9. Age of superannuation shall be 58 years, but extension in service may be considered for a period of 1 (one) year each up to 60 (sixty) years of age, depending on the merit of each case. The Department shall work out appropriate mechanism to evaluate each such case of extension in service and notify separately.” 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule 9 clearly shows that extension case may be considered by the department, the department concerned has discretion in the matter, the employee cannot claim extension as a matter of right. The Department shall work out appropriate mechanism to evaluate each such case of extension in service and notify separately.” 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule 9 clearly shows that extension case may be considered by the department, the department concerned has discretion in the matter, the employee cannot claim extension as a matter of right. The memorandum No. F. 19(2)CA/77/l dated 10th May, 1993 issued by the Govt of Tripura, Appointment and Service Department which lays down guideline with regard to extension/reemployment beyond the age of superannuation puts embargo on extension in cases where vigilance clearance/departmental proceedings are either pending or contemplated. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents sought declaration from the AR Department on 15th June, 1995, but no reply was received from the said department. Under the memorandum No.F.8(11)-Fin(G)/86 dated 30th October, 1996 vide para 5E, the Administrative Department and the Administrative Reforms Department should issue vigilance clearance positively within the first week of the month in which the employee is to retire. But since no reply was received from the AR Department in the first week of the month of July, 1999 and since the petitioner was to retire on 31st July, 1999 it has to be declared that no vigilance case was pending against the petitioner in terms of the office memorandum No.1(3)-FIN(G)/77 dated 6th March, 1991 which contemplates that if no reply was received from the Vigilance Department within a period of one week, it shall be deemed that there is no departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retiring Govt servant. The two office memorandum dated 6.3.1991 and 30th October, 1996 are with regard to finalisation of pensionary benefits of retiring employee, have no application to the case of an extension. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the respondents had made up their mind from before not to grant of extension to the petitioner as even though the petitioner's representation for extension before the respondents was pending, the Principal of the college informed the petitioner on 22.6.1999 that the petitioner was to retire on 30th July 99 It may be observed that the representation of the petitioner for extension was to be considered by the Govt, the Principal of the college informed the petitioner about the date of his superannuation required under the Rules. From the mere fact that before the disposal of the petitioner's representation for extension the Principal of the college apprised, the petitioner about the date of his retirement, it cannot be said that the respondents were predetermined not to grant extension to the petitioner. A perusal of the Rule 9 of UGC Rules, 1996 clearly shows that the extension of service after superannuation is not matter of right, the Govt mayor may not grant extension after considering the merits of each case, the merits of the case may warrant or may not warrant extension of the service after superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondents have not issued extension merely on the ground that the vigilance case was pending against the petitioner, the respondents authority ought to have considered the merits of the criminal case and subject matter of vigilance against the petitioner. The petitioner's case has not been considered at all on merit, no reason has been disclosed in the order where by the extension has been refused. The petitioner did not receive any adverse remarks during his entire career. No disciplinary proceeding was instituted against him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Tripura Govt notification dated 26th March, 1999 introducing in Rule 6 relating to age of superannuation at 58 years is in contravention of the UGC notification and, as such, is violative of the provisions of Articles 31C, 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution, is illegal, wrong arbitrary, violating of the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner, the principle of natural justice have been violated, the petitioner's case has not been considered at all, in fact it is a case of non-consideration, every administrative order including the impugned order must be supported by the evidence. In support of his arguments, b learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1974 SC 2192 (Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab & others), AIR 1990 SC 1215 (Anil Kumar vs. Nanak Chandra Verma); AIR 1967 SC 1074 (Khub Chand & others vs. State of Rajasthan); AIR 1976 SC 133 (Dilip Kumar Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh); AIR 1993 SC 1082 (Union of India vs. WN Chanda); AIR 1997 CC 13 (State of Rajasthan vs. BK Meena & others); AIR 1986 SC 2105 (Basudeo Vishwanath vs. New Education Institute); AIR 1976 SC 1785 (The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co of India Ltd vs. The Union of India & others); AIR 1970 SC 1203 (M/s Mahabir Prasad Sontosh Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others); AIR 1978 SC 2057 (M/s Mahabir Jute , Mills Ltd vs. Shibban Lal Saxena & others); AIR 2000 SC 72 (Dr. Narayan Sharma vs. Dr. Pankaj Kumar Lehkar); AIR 1972 SC 2379 (Sri ML Sethi vs. Sri RP Kapui); AIR 1967 SC 295 (Barium Chemicals Ltd vs. Company Law Board & others); AIR 1958 SC 86 (State of UP vs. Mohammad Nooh); AIR 1975 SC 915 (Ramchandra Keshow (dead) by Lrs vs. Govinda Joti Charave & others); AIR 1987 SC 579 (Dr. C. Wadhwa & others vs. State of Bihar); AIR 1996 SC 1627 (State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Mc Dowell and Co & others); AIR 1996 SC 2384 (Thirmuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thiffathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others); AIR 1997 SC 3126 (Konda Venugopal Raju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh); AIR 1981 Karnataka 1, (DM Rudraish vs. University of Mysore) Corpus Juris Volume 15A, 582, 583, 584 and Corpus Jurist Secundum Vol. 15 p 5288.1 have gone through all these cases and these cases do not render assistance to the petitioner in view of the controversy involved in the case. 9. In a similar case Bimal Kumar Chanda vs. The State of Tripura & others, in Civil Rule No.239 of 1895 decided by this Court on 14th August, 1996, the Government decision to refuse-extension on the ground the vigilance clearance was not available was upheld. 9. In a similar case Bimal Kumar Chanda vs. The State of Tripura & others, in Civil Rule No.239 of 1895 decided by this Court on 14th August, 1996, the Government decision to refuse-extension on the ground the vigilance clearance was not available was upheld. In the instant case in view of the absence of vigilance clearance certificate and the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, the refusal of extension to the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjustified or malafide. It may also be mentioned that no charge of mala fide or bias has been made against any of the respondents. 10. In the result, the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 28th July, 1999 stands vacated.