Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
LAXMIBEN MAHESHBHAI MAKWANA - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT AYURVED UNIVERSITY & others - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16063 of 2017
Decided On : 02-07-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - ITRA Act - Subsection (d) of Section 5 - Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation - Pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to retire the petitioner from service on her attaining - Whether teaching or non-teaching would retire from service on attaining superannuation age of 60 years - Respondent No.1 is an autonomous body receiving grant from the Central Government - Petitioner served the respondent as non-teaching staff member - respondent No.1 has time and again made proposal before Central Government for increasing age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years of non-teaching staff at par with teaching staff of respondent No.1. The petitioner was also granted the benefit of sixth pay commission and increment as per the Central Service - Respondent No.1 did not get any approval or sanction from the Central Government to raise the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years of its non-teaching staff - Petitioner has preferred this petition in year 2017 before one month of her retirement on attaining age of 58 years
Findings of the court : Retirement age of Central Government employees and employees of Autonomous Bodies under Central Government is sixty years - Per Subsection (d) of Section 5 of ITRA Act, every employee shall hold his office or service therein by same tenure, remuneration and same terms & conditions and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms & conditions are duly altered by regulations - Regulations regarding service conditions of TRA have not been finalized so far, approval is hereby conveyed to make applicable FR 56 (a) to employees of ITRA as in case of employees of other autonomous bodies under this Ministry and enhance retirement age of non-teaching staff of ITRA from 58 years to 60 years - Remaining two years of service shall be considered as notional service and the petitioner shall be entitled to get retirement benefits including pension as if petitioner has retired on 60 years considering notional service of petitioner including the increase in pay scale etc., if applicable to petitioner - Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall recalculate retirement and pension benefits of petitioner accordingly and complete such exercise within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and pay the arrears, if any
Result : Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.M.B.Rana for the respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave or the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondent No.3 thorough video conference.
1. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya has tendered a draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. As the controversy raised in this petition is in very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(B) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to retire the petitioner from service on her attaining the age of 58 years and continue her in service till she attains the age of 60 years in view of Office Memorandum dated 30.5.1998 and the Board’s decision taken in the meeting of 16.10.2015 as reflected in Circular dated 18/19.3.2016 and grant all other consequential benefits, or in the alternative
(C) direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years and grant all other consequential benefits, and award the cost of the present petition, and
(D) award the cost of the present petition, and
(E) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from retiring the petitioner from service on her attainment of 58 years and to continue her in service till she attains 60 years of age on any terms and conditions that the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper, and/ or
(F) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to consider the reply of proposal given by the Res. No. 2 on 16.1.2017 and take appropriate action regarding raising the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff of I.P.G.T.&R.A. of Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar from 58 years to 60 years forthwith in view of proposal dated 14.8.2017, and/ or
(G) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. The petitioner has mainly prayed for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as according to the petitioner who is discharging the duties of non-teaching staff with the respondent No.1-Institute was having the superannuation age of 58 years and not 60 years contrary to the Central Government Office Memorandum and Department Notification No.25012/2/97-Esst.(A) dated 13.05.1998 and 27.05.1998 which has amended F.R.56(a) to the effect that except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servants shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:
5.1. The respondent No.1 is an autonomous body receiving 100% grant from the Central Government. The petitioner served the respondent No.1 from 06.07.1987 till 30th September, 2017 as non-teaching staff member.
5.2. The respondent No.1 has time and again made proposal before the Central Government for increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years of non-teaching staff at par with teaching staff of the respondent No.1. The petitioner was also granted the benefit of sixth pay commission and increment as per the Central Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
5.3. The respondent No.1 did not get any approval or sanction from
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
