Back
2003 Supreme(Guj) 371
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.L.DAVE, J.N.Bhatt
BAKUL TRIPATHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 7599 of 1988
Decided On : 07/09/2003
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Education - Petitioner continuing in service - Denial of his claim for salary and other benefits for the said period by respondent is under challenge - Considering the provisions of law and university ordinance and the fact that it was on account of inter-locutory order granted by this Court that petitioner has worked till the end of the term - Respondent cannot disown its responsibility to pay salary for the period to petitioner - Court passed consequential order to that effect.
After giving our critical appraisal and analytical evaluation of the provisions of the Ordinance and the vesting of powers in the Executive Council as well as the Vice Chancellor and also the factum that by virtue of interlocutory order granted by this Court, during the pendency of proceedings the petitioner had worked till the end of the term, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to salary and other incidental benefits during the extended period of service by virtue of order of this Court and, therefore, respondents are obliged to pay the salary for the period. Court has no hesitation in finding that the claim made by the petitioner in respect of extended period and that too by way of salary is quite just and reasonable. It is, really, very unfortunate that a merited man of literature, after having put in 35 years of service had to knock the doors of justice for extended period of job on account of interpretation of the relevant ordinances. A person who has put in such a long service and who is a man of letter may not be given a pat on the back, but at least, would not expect a slap on the cheek while winding up long academic career. Graceful going back is always a pleasant and enjoying experience for a service or salaried person. Be that as it may. We are of the clear opinion that the petitioner is entitled to salary and incidental benefits for the extended period of service in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner and correct exposition of the provisions of the Ordinance.
[Para 10]
( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the orders and communication at Annexure-C, E and F and amended Ordinances at Annexure d-2 and D-3 as illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and of no effect whatsoever with a further prayer to treat him as continuing in service till the end of the academic term beginning in November, 1988 and ending in April, 1989, by filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) A few material facts may be stated at the outset. The petitioners birth- date is 27-11-1928 and he was to attain the age of 60 years on 27-11-1988. According to the petitioner, in Commerce faculty, under Ordinance 75 terms are expressly prescribed. The first term is beginning on 15th June and ending on 20th October. From 20th October to 10th November is Winter vacation and the second term begins on 11th November and ends on 7th April of every academic year, and from 7th April to 14th June is Summer vacation. In this context, it is stated by the petitioner that according to the well established statutory University policy, the petitioner was to retire in the middle of the second term, and therefore, should have retired at the end of the term i. e. , on 7-4-1989. Somehow or the other, such right is denied by the unauthorised action of the respondent-authorities and in express violation of the statutory provisions.
( 3 ) THE Executive Council of the University, respondent No. 2 had framed ordinance 172 (15) prescribing the age of retirement of college teachers and providing that he will retire on the date on which he attains the age of sixty. This was made subject to the proviso that the date of superannuation shall be 10th November or 14th June of year whichever comes earlier after the teacher attains the age of sixty years.
( 4 ) THE salary of the college teachers is paid by the State of Gujarat as a part of the grant paid to this affiliated colleges. State of Gujarat by resolution dated 9th June, 1987 provided that if a teacher happens to attain the age of 60 years in the middle of the term, he will retire at the end of the term and not at the end of the vacation following the term. The petitioner has also relied on a judgment given by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Service tribunal in Application No. 74 of 1985, whereby it was decided that the teachers attaining the age of 60 years in the middle of the term are entitled to retire at the end of the term notwithstanding the occasional shifting of the term which may be necessitated due to disturbances or such other reasons. In this context, it is pleaded that the clarification made by the communication was that the teacher would retire at the end of the normal vacation and not the shifted vacation.
( 5 ) THE further plea advanced by the petitioner is that at the beginning of the then academic year, the colleges started late due to delay in completion of examination work caused by the strike of the teachers. In June 1988, the term that was supposed to begin on 15th June, 1988 was delayed by more than a month. In June, 1988, the Executive Council of the University was not functioning. The Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No. 2-University by the communication dated 14-6-1988 informed all the colleges that he had amended ordinance 172 (15) and the amended Ordinance provided that a teacher who superannuates in the midst of the vacation will retire on the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Thus, a major policy decision was taken by the Vice-Chancellor which could only be taken by the Executive council. It is, therefore, pleaded that the action of the Vice-Chancellor is unauthorised and usurpation of powers of the Executive Council.
( 6 ) THE petitioner received letter dated 4-11-1988 from respondent No. 3-Society informing him that he would retire on 30-11-1988. The respondent no. 3-Society has also placed on record its appreciation of the petitioners very valuable service for more than 35 years. T
