Extension after superannuation is not a matter of right and may be granted based on the merits of each case. The absence of vigilance clearance and the pendency of a criminal case can justify the refusal of extension.

Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. UB Saha, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. TD Majumder, learned Addl Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is disposed of finally.

3. The petitioner Shri Prabir Dutta Gupta served as Reader in the BB Evening College, Agartala. He was to retire on 31st July, 1999. Under Rule 9 of the Govt notification extending UGC Scales 1996 to the College Teacher of Tripura (in short UGC Scales, 1996), the petitioner's case for extension in service was considered. The respondents have not allowed extension to the petitioner, the petitioner has grievances against the same. By order dated 28th July, 1999, it was ordered by this Court that the petitioner will continue as Reader BB Evening College till further orders but for the period after 31 st July 99 no salary will be paid to him.

4. The ground for refusal to extension of the petitioner service is that the petitioner is running a Travelling Agency, namely, M/s Laxmi Travels in the name of his wife though prohibited by Rule 15 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. There were allegations of black marketing in purchase and sale tickets in the office of the said agency, the petitioner being a party to it, vigilance enquiry has been registered against him, a criminal case under section 409/465/ 468 and 474IPC has been registered and the same is pending in the Court. The Vigilance Department has not given clearance.

5. It is relevant to reproduce Rule 9 of the UGC Rules, 1996, which runs as follows:

“9. Age of superannuation shall be 58 years, but extension in service may be considered for a period of 1 (one) year each up to 60 (sixty) years of age, depending on the merit of each case. The Department shall work out appropriate mechanism to evaluate each such case of extension in service and notify separately.”

6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule 9 clearly shows that extension case may be considered by the department, the department concerned has discretion in the matter, the employee cannot claim extension as a matter of right. The memorandum No. F. 19(2)CA/77/l dated 10th May, 1993 issued by the Govt of Tripura, Appointment and Service Department which lays down guideline with regard to extension/reemployment beyond the age of superannuation puts embargo on extension in cases where vigilance clearance/departmental proceedings are either pending or contemplated. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents sought declaration from the AR Department on 15th June, 1995, but no reply was received from the said department. Under the memorandum No.F.8(11)-Fin(G)/86 dated 30th October, 1996 vide para 5E, the Administrative Department and the Administrative Reforms Department should issue vigilance clearance positively within the first week of the month in which the employee is to retire. But since no reply was received from the AR Department in the first week of the month of July, 1999 and since the petitioner was to retire on 31st July, 1999 it has to be declared that no vigilance case was pending against the petitioner in terms of the office memorandum No.1(3)-FIN(G)/77 dated 6th March, 1991 which contemplates that if no reply was received from the Vigilance Department within a period of one week, it shall be deemed that there is no departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retiring Govt servant. The two office memorandum dated 6.3.1991 and 30th October, 1996 are with regard to finalisation of pensionary benefits of retiring employee, have no application to the case of an extension.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the respondents had made up their mind from before not to grant of extension to the petitioner as even though the petitioner's representation for extension before the respondents was pending, the Principal of the college informed the petitioner on 22.6.1999 that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document