Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J
Prabhat Chandra Kalita S/o Late Dulal Chandra Kalita – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to increase the retirement age of the petitioner from 60 years to 65 years and to reinstate the petitioner in service.
2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was serving as a Principal in Paschim Barigog Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, Baranghati. He submits that the said college was a private college affiliated with the Gauhati University.
3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Cabinet had taken a decision on 19.09.2012, to raise the age of retirement of all Professors of educational institutions, including medical colleges, from 60 years to 65 years. Accordingly, the petitioner’s retirement age should have been extended to 65 years. However, he was made to retire on 24.10.2019, on attaining the age of 60 years.
4. As the petitioner’s representation to the authorities for extension of his retirement age had not been decided, the petitioner filed WP(C) 6887/2019. WP(C) 6887/2019 was disposed of, vide order dated 13.09.2019, by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the authorities, regarding his claim
A Cabinet decision requires formal implementation to be enforceable; the absence of such an order renders claims based on it invalid.
Cabinet decisions require formal orders to be enforceable; without such orders, claims for retirement age extension are not valid.
The State has the discretion to frame its own laws relating to education and is not bound to accept or follow UGC regulations.
increasing the age of superannuation only in the case of Professors, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as alleged, for the simple reason that whereas equals cannot be ....
Government Orders increasing retirement age do not apply to private school employees, as employment contracts govern such matters.
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
(1) Whether age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance age of superannuation, date with effect from which enhancement should be made falls....
The court established that teaching staff have a right to enforce the statutory age of superannuation of 65 years, as per the University Grants Commission regulations.
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
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
