Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1624 (ALL)

Suyash Narayan Upadhyay v. State of U. P.

2015-06-25

RAJAN ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard Sri Durgesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mansoor Ahmad learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri J.B.S. Rathore for opposite parties 3 and 4. The petitioner herein is an Assistant Teacher in Adarsh Inter College Bhadarya, Sultanpur. He had earlier filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2414 (S.S.)/2015 based on the same facts and cause of action but under a misconception he had based his claim on the provisions referable to Basic Schools, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he undertakes to withdraw the earlier writ petition and in these circumstances prays that this writ petition should be heard. 2. This second writ petition without withdrawing the earlier writ petition is not maintainable, however, as even on merits the petitioner does not have a case, therefore, in order to put at rest the controversy the petition is also being considered on merits. 3. Earlier the academic session for the Basic Schools was from 1st July to 30th June of the next calendar year, as per Rule 29. The date of birth of the petitioner herein is 5.7.1952. The age of superannuation/retirement being 62 years the petitioner attained the age of superannuation/retirement on 5.7.2014. However, considering the then existing provision as contained in Regulation 21 he was allowed to continue till the end of academic session i.e., till 30th June, 2015. In the meantime an amendment in Regulation 15 took place vide Government Order dated 15.10.2014 whereby the term "academic session" as defined in Regulation 15 of Chapter-I has been amended and instead of the session commencing from 1st July and ending on 30th June it has now been defined as commencing from 1st April and ending on 31st March of the next year. Subsequently, vide notification dated 12.6.2015 Regulation 21 has also been amended (though this fact has not been mentioned in the writ petition nor annexed therewith but a copy of the same has been placed before the court by the learned Chief Standing Counsel). By the amendment Regulation 21 has been brought in consonance with the amendment of Regulation 15 referred to hereinabove. Consequent thereto a teacher retiring in mid-academic session i.e., 1st April to 31st March next, is entitled to suo motu continue in service till 31st March. By the amendment Regulation 21 has been brought in consonance with the amendment of Regulation 15 referred to hereinabove. Consequent thereto a teacher retiring in mid-academic session i.e., 1st April to 31st March next, is entitled to suo motu continue in service till 31st March. However, benefit of these amendments is available only from 1.4.2015 meaning thereby that those who have already retired prior to 1st April, 2015 but are continuing in service only on account of Regulations 15 and 21 as they existed prior to 12.6.2015 shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III read with Regulation 15 referred to above, though they may continue till 30th June, 2015. 4. Once having been granted the benefit of continuance till the end of academic session under the earlier Regulation the petitioner cannot now claim that he is entitled to further continuance till 31st March, 2016 in view of the aforesaid amendment in Regulations 15 and 21 and the change in the academic session. In fact he has already attained the age of superannuation/retirement on 5th July, 2014 i.e., academic session 2014-15 and in the normal course, but for Regulation 21, he would have retired on 31st July, 2014. The benefit of continuance till the end of academic session is available only once. The amendment in Regulation 21 is not applicable to petitioner who had already attained the age of superannuation/retirement in the earlier academic session 2014-15 and is getting the benefit of Regulation 21 as existed earlier. The notifications dated 15.10.2014 and 12.6.2015 are applicable with effect from 1.4.2015 for academic session 2015-16 and onwards. 5. In view of the above the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein is misconceived, more so, in view of the fact that a single Judge of this Court has already dismissed a similar writ petition in respect of a teacher of High School/Intermediate College vide judgment dated 22.5.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 2735 (S.S.) of 2015 and the same has been affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9.6.2015 passed in Special Appeal No. 227 of 2015. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.