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

2024 Supreme(Chh) 304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.
Smt. Lalta Sharma (Dead), W/o Shir Chandrika Prasad Sharma, Ex- Assistant Librarian, through Lrs.
Ajay Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 3396 of 2011
Decided On : 20-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The State has the discretion to frame its own laws relating to education and is not bound to accept or follow UGC regulations.

Headnote:

Age of Superannuation - Assistant Librarian - MP/CG Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, UGC Circular dated 19.10.2006, Circular dated 31.12.2008 - The court discussed the MP/CG Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, UGC Circular dated 19.10.2006, and Circular dated 31.12.2008, which specified the age of superannuation for Assistant Librarians and the distinction between teaching staff and librarians.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Librarian, challenged an order retiring her at the age of 60, contrary to the UGC circular specifying the age of superannuation for Assistant Librarians as 62.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State had the discretion to frame its own laws regarding education and was not bound to follow UGC regulations. It held that the petitioner could not be equated with teaching staff to receive the benefit of age of superannuation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as an Assistant Librarian, was entitled to the age of superannuation of 62 years as per the UGC circular.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the State had the liberty to frame its own laws relating to education and was not bound to accept or follow UGC regulations. It also emphasized that the courts should be slow in interfering with matters of government policy.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no error or infirmity in the impugned order, stating that the petitioner could not be equated with teaching staff to receive the benefit of age of superannuation.

ORDER ON BOARD :

1. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Librarian vide order dated 16.09.1978 issued by Principal, Government Lal Chakradhar Shah College, Ambagarh Chowki, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner’s service conditions were governed by MP/CG Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990. According to the said Rules, the petitioner being an Assistant Librarian is stated to be an employee under the Teaching Department. The University Grand Commission (UGC), New Delhi vide Circular dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure-P/6) informed the Eduation Secretary all the All States Government and Union Territories and the Registrar of All Universities and Deemed Universities that age of superannuation for Assistant Librarians/College Librarians and Assistant Directors for Physical Education/College Directors of Physical Education would henceforth be 62 years. In pursuance of said circular, the State has also issued an order on 30.07.2007 (Annexure- P/7) and extended the age of superannuation in respect of Sports Teacher/Librarian till 62 years. Thereafter, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India, New Delhi has issued a circular on 31.12.2008 and introduced Schemes for revised pay scale and other provisions. In the said circular, an observation has been made with regard to age of superannuation and it is held that “Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education.

In view of the above, the petitioner claimed that the age of retirement for Librarians, Assistant Librarians etc. is 62 years. However, all of a sudden, respondent No.4 has issued impugned letter/order on 12.11.2010 (Annexure-P/2) to the petitioner retiring her with effect from 30.06.2011 i.e. at 60 years of age. Hence, this petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

    “(i) it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to issuance of impugned letter dated 07.05.2011 and order dated 12.11.2010 retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2011, from the respondents for its kind perusal.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 07.05.2011 and order dated 12.11.2010 by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents not to retire the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2011 at the age of 60 years treating the petitioner as Class-III category employee.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs, which Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12.11.2010, whereby, the petitioner was superannuated with effect from 30.06.2011 is bad in law and arbitrary in nature as UGC in specific and laudable terms stated the age of superannuation of Assistant Librarian to be 62 years. He submits that only on the basis of subsequent circular dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure-P/8), the Authorities did not consider the case of present petitioner for further enhancement of age of superannuation and made difference between the teachers engaged in class room and Librarians, in case there is no shortage of the aforesaid posts. However, it is explicit from the said circular that standard age of superannuation of Librari

    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 Back to top