SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 801

L.M.SHARMA, S.MOHAN, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
State Of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Hari Dutt Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
S.K.AGNIHOTRI, S.K.Gambhir, Sakesh Kumar, VIVEK GAMBHIR

JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:—By the impugned order the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent to continue in service up to the age of 60 years and has held that he cannot be retired at 58 only. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.

2. The respondent was holding the post of Deputy Director when he was promoted as Joint Director, Social Welfare Department in 1989. He completed the age of 58 years in January, 1991 when according to the decision of the appellant he had to retire. According to the rules the age of retirement in the department is 58 years excepting for teachers who are to continue in service till 60. It is not disputed that the posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director are not teaching posts and the respondent cannot take advantage of the higher age of retirement on that account. However, the respondent relies upon the Explanation to the Rule which is in the following terms : -

"Explanation : For purpose of this sub-rule "Teacher" means a Government servant, by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in an educational institution run by the Government including technic








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top