Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA & SUNITA GUPTA, JJ.
JITENDRA SINGH NARUKA – Petitioner
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & OTHERS – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 6025 of 2014 & C.M. No. 14686 of 2014
Decided On : 09-11-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.P. Luthra.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Bansal, Ms. Seema Dolo, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, Ms. Priti, Mr. V. Sudeer and Ms. Monica Yadav.
Headnote:
RETIREMENT - University of Delhi - Ordinance XI, Ordinance XXVII - The judgment discusses the applicability of Ordinance XI and XXVII of the University of Delhi Act, 1922 in determining the age of retirement for Directors of Physical Education. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for parity with teachers and held that the amended Ordinance XXVII, which specifically deals with the age of superannuation/retirement of Registrars, Librarians, and Directors of Physical Education, would override the general references equating the Directors of Physical Education with teachers. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Director of Physical Education at the University of Delhi, challenged the university's decision to retire him at the age of 62, claiming that he should be entitled to retire at 65 as per the amended Ordinance XI. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to continue in service till 65 years, which was disposed of based on the judgment in Damayanti V. Tambay. An expert Committee was constituted to examine the age of superannuation of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, which recommended maintaining the retirement age at 62 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amended Ordinance XXVII would be applicable to the petitioner, overriding the general references equating the Directors of Physical Education with teachers. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for parity with teachers and dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the amended Ordinance XI and XXVII in determining the age of retirement for Directors of Physical Education at the University of Delhi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amended Ordinance XXVII, which specifically deals with the age of superannuation/retirement of Registrars, Librarians, and Directors of Physical Education, would override the general references equating the Directors of Physical Education with teachers. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for parity with teachers and dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim for parity with teachers and held that the amended Ordinance XXVII would be applicable to the petitioner, overriding the general references equating the Directors of Physical Education with teachers.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Dr. Jitendra Singh Naruka, in this writ petition has made the following prayers:
“(i) Declare the recommendations dated 23rd January, 2013 of the committee, constituted under notification No. DU/124/LEGAL/HC-4310/2011 dated 20th October, 2012 and also its approval by the vice chancellor, as illegal and unconstitutional.
(ii) Declare the E.C. Res. No. 142 dated 6th October, 2009, notification vide Reference No. Estb. II (i) 2009/Delhi Dated 16th October, 2009: The Ordinance XXVII – Age of Retirement of Staff as illegal and Unconstitutional.
(iii) Quash the Office order No. 380 dated 22nd October, 2009 (reference No. Estb. II (i)/2009/66556 Delhi dated 22nd October, 2009), thereby retiring the Petitioner at Age of 62 years, as illegal and unconstitutional.
(iv) Direct the Respondents to declare the age of retirement/superannuation of the Petitioner as 65 Years instead of 62 years, with all consequential benefits.
(v) Petitioner further prays for passing of any other or further orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and also in the interest of justice.”
2. On 26th March, 1985, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Director of Physical Education. The petitioner claims that his appointment was duly recognized as a teacher as per the Statute of the University of Delhi and accordingly his service conditions were governed by Ordinance XI of the Delhi University Act, 1922. Accordingly, he was entitled to benefit of Clause 4 (1) of Ordinance XI as amended on 8th August, 2007 enhancing the age of superannuation of teachers from 62 years to 65 years. The petitioner was earlier extended and given benefits as were extended and made applicable to Professors of the Delhi University on implementation of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Further, one (Dr.) Ms. Sudershan Pathak, who was the Deputy Director of Physical Education, University of Delhi and was to retire on 31st August, 2007 on attaining the age of 62 years was allowed to continue and had retired at 65 years.
3. Predicated on the aforesaid assertions and ascribing the legal position, it is submitted that the respondent University had erred in issuing the Office Order dated 26th June, 2009, that the petitioner would retire on 31st July, 2009 as he had attained the age of superannuation of 62 years.
4. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6242/2011, impugning the Office Order dated 22nd October, 2009 retiring him, and had sought mandamus to allow him to continue in service till he attained the age of 65 years. The petitioner had also impugned the notification dated 16th October, 2009 amending Ordinance XXVII by inserting a specific clause that the Directors of Physical Education would retire at the age of 62 years. The writ petition was admitted for hearing on 31st July, 2012. The petitioner had thereafter filed CM No. 8409/2012 pleading that he would be completing 65 years of age on 31st July, 2012 and the issue was covered by the Division Bench judgment dated 18th May, 2012 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 7939/2011 titled Damayanti V. Tambay Vs. Union of India & Others. On the basis of this submission by the petitioner, Writ Petition (C) No. 6242/2011 was disposed of vide order dated 7th August, 2012, recording as under:-
“2. We have in our judgment in Damayanti V. Tambay (supra) directed the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), respondent in that case to reexamine exclusion of Directors of Physical Education from the benefit of enhancement of superannuation age accorded to teachers and in the light of the discussions contained therein, in as much as we had not found any justification in the reasons given for denying the benefit of age enhancement to Directors of Physical Education.
3. The respondent University is s
