Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 345 (UTT)

Harish Chandra Chandola v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-05-26

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. Issue notice. 2. Counsel for the respondents appear and accept notice. 3. The reliefs sought in the present writ petition are the following : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for records and quash the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 by which respondent No. 2 relying upon government order dated 15.10.2012 fixed the date of superannuating of the petitioner as 31.08.2023 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefit of re-employment to the petitioner as per para 16.24 of the First Statutes till 30th June 2024. (iii) Issue any other writ, rule or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of the petition.” 4. The case of the petitioner is that his due date of retirement is 31.08.2023. He is working as Professor, Department of Physics, D.S.B. Campus, Kumaun University, Nainital. 5. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 03.11.2022, whereby he has been shown to retire from service on 31.08.2023. The petitioner claims that he cannot be retired on the said date, and he is entitled to continue to serve till 30.06.2024, in terms of Statute 16.24. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3493 of 2020, Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, decided along with several other civil appeals, on 16.10.2020. 6. The Supreme Court considered the aforesaid Statute, which reads as follows : “16.24 (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University, whether governed by the new scale of pay or not shall be sixty-five years. (2) No extension in service beyond the age of superannuation shall be granted to any teacher after the date of commencement of these statutes. Provided that a teacher whose date of superannuation does not fall on June 30, shall continue on service till the end of the academic session, that is June 30, following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June, 30, following. Provided that a teacher whose date of superannuation does not fall on June 30, shall continue on service till the end of the academic session, that is June 30, following and will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following his superannuation till June, 30, following. (Provided further that such physically and mentally fit teachers shall be reappointed for a further period of two years, after June, 30, following the date of their superannuation as were imprisoned for taking part in freedom struggle of 1942 and are getting freedom fighters pension) Provided also that the teachers who were re-appointed in accordance with the second proviso as it existed prior to the commencement to the Kumaun University (Twenty-third amendment) First Statute, 1988 and a period of one year has not elapsed after the expiry of the period of their reemployment, may be considered for re-employment for a further period of one year.” 7. The Supreme Court has held that the session benefit would be available to all such employees, who are retiring after 30th of June, in a particular year, and they shall be entitled to continue till 30th of June of the next year. 8. The finding of the Supreme Court reads as follows : “14. This Court is consequently of the opinion that the impugned judgment is in error. The very object and intent of the proviso to Statute No. 16.24 is to avoid the disruption caused by discontinuity of service of a teaching staff employee or official mid-session. Therefore, the view in Dr. Indu Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2017 SCC Online 1527, dealing with an identical statute No. 16.24 [Professor Sri Krishna Khandelwal and Binod Kumar Singh (supra)] too were correctly decided. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside. The appellants are entitled, consequently, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment. If any of them has been superannuated, he or she shall be issued with orders of reinstatement, with full salary for the period they were out of employment, and allowed to continue till the following June, on re-employment basis. The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.” 9. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsels for the respondents do not consider it necessary to file a counter-affidavit, or contest this petition. 10. The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.” 9. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsels for the respondents do not consider it necessary to file a counter-affidavit, or contest this petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall remain in service / re-employment after 30.08.2023, till 30.06.2024. 11. Interim Relief Application (IA No. 01 of 2023) also stands disposed of.