Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1662 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Braj Nandan Roy

2008-11-21

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN

body2008
Judgment 1. State of Bihar and its Officers aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 14585 of 2004 have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondent was working as Foreman Instructor in Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology which is an Institute of the Government of Bihar. It is not in dispute that the age of retirement of the Government Employee is 58 years and that of the teachers of the University and other colleges is 60 years. He superannuated from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.1.2001. He assailed the aforesaid decision inter alia contending that as he is receiving salary as teacher according to the recommendation of the University Grant Commission; he shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years fixed for retirement of the teachers in colleges and University, notwithstanding the fact that he is a Government servant. This plea found favour with the learned Single Judge and it observed as follows: "Having had accorded the status of a teacher by permitting the petitioner to draw salaries under the University Grants Commission scale, it was improper on the part of the Institute and the State to contend that the petitioner is liable to retire on attaining the age of fifty eight years." 3. It was not disputed before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner being in service in the Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, is a Government employee and as such, all laws and rules made by the Government of Bihar for its employee shall equally apply in his case. It is worth mentioning the observation of the learned Single Judge in this regard: "Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology is a wholly owned Institute of the Government of Bihar. Any and every employee of the said Institute is, thus, a Government employee. As such, all laws and rules made by the Government of Bihar for its employees are equally applicable to each and every employee of the said Institute. The said Institute had and has teaching as well as non-teaching staff. The service conditions of each such staff is governed by the rules made by the Government of Bihar. As such, all laws and rules made by the Government of Bihar for its employees are equally applicable to each and every employee of the said Institute. The said Institute had and has teaching as well as non-teaching staff. The service conditions of each such staff is governed by the rules made by the Government of Bihar. The rules made by the Government of Bihar under Bihar Service Code provided at the relevant time that the employees of the Government will superannuate on attaining the age of fifty eight years. In such view of the matter, each and every employee of the said Institute was liable to retire on attaining the age of fifty eight years." 4. Learned Standing Counsel No. 10 appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge on its own finding that the writ petitioner is a Government employee ought not to have directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service till attaining the age of 60 years with all the consequential benefits. He submits that the teachers of Government Colleges and other Colleges constitute different class and in that view of the matter, the application of the principle of discrimination is absolutely misconceived. 5. Mr. S.N. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the writ petitioner is getting the salary similar to the salary given to the teachers of University colleges, there is no justification for treating him differently so far as the age of superannuation is concerned. 6. Having appreciated the rival submission, we find substance in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. Writ petitioner is working in Government College. Government College stands on entirely different. footing than that of the other Colleges of University. Simply because writ petitioner is getting salary equal to the salary of teachers working in the other University Colleges itself, shall not entitle him the same benefit. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 2540-50/97 (State of Bihar and Others vs. Teachers Association of Government Engineering Colleges and Others) disposed off on 27.8.1998 this point need not detain us. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 2540-50/97 (State of Bihar and Others vs. Teachers Association of Government Engineering Colleges and Others) disposed off on 27.8.1998 this point need not detain us. In the said case it has been held as follows: "xxx We fail to see how in respect of teachers who are Government servants, governed by the Bihar Service Code, the age of superannuation should be different from the age of superannuation for all other Government servants governed by the Bihar Service Code. The High Court ought not to have equated the service conditions in the three State Colleges with the service conditions in a University college. Application of Article 14, in these circumstances, is misconceived, when there are valid criteria for different rating between the service conditions in the two sets of colleges. In the premises, the impugned judgment of the High Court in so far as it directs that the age of superannuation of teachers working in the three Engineering Colleges other than the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna should be brought at par with the age of superannuation of those working in the Bihar College of Engineering at Patna, is set aside. The further direction to pay arrears or give benefits flowing from the extended age of superannuation is also set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly." 7. In view of this categorical enunciation of law, we are constrained to observe that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost.