IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Ravinder Nath Pathak & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
CWP No. 3392 of 2020
Decided On : 17-11-2022
Retirement - Seeking Benefits of Extension of Service - Petitioners have approached this Court seeking direction to respondents to extend them benefits of extension of service – Notification/Policy of respondent-State provides grant of extension but not re-employment. [Para 8]
Finding of the Court: Extension is granted to an employee who is in service - No extension can be after retirement - After retirement there can only be re-employment - Notification/Policy of respondent-State provides grant of extension but not re-employment - Therefore, claim of petitioner is not sustainable - At time of granting award to petitioners, policy in vogue was to pay cash award which remained in force till 2015 and petitioners had retired in year 2009 and 2010, i.e. before change in policy whereby benefit of extension of service was re-introduced to State/National awardees and, therefore, this benefit is not available to petitioners and thus, present petition is misconceived - News item is not a Notification of State Government, but is a gist of Policy of State as understood by Press Reporter or News Composer Editor on desk of newspaper and no right flows from such news item to anybody, including petitioner.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to extend them benefits of extension of service in furtherance to the Notifications dated 24.09.2015 and 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-5 & P-6), whereby, State and National Awardee Teachers have been given benefits of extension of one/two years of service, in lieu of cash award for receiving State/National Awards.
2. Petitioner No.1 was awarded State and National Award on 05.09.2001 and 05.09.2008. Petitioner No.2 was awarded State and National Award on 05.09.2004 and 05.09.2007. At that time State and National Awardee was entitled for one and two year(s) extension of service after attaining age of superannuation.
3. Before retirement of petitioners, vide notification dated 15.09.2003 (Annexure P-4), it was notified that State Awardee teachers will be given a cash award of Rs.25,000/- and the National Awardee teachers will be given a cash award of Rs.50,000/-, in lieu of extension of 1 year and 2 year of service which was being given to such awardees earlier, on attaining the age of superannuation and this decision was made effective from the date of issue of the Notification.
4. Undisputedly, before attaining age of superannuation by the petitioners, Rs.50,000/- each was paid to them through Bank Draft dated 03.09.2009 and 02.09.2008 respectively. Petitioner No.1 retired on 31.10.2009, whereas, petitioner No.2 retired on 31.05.2010.
5. Vide Notification dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-5), Policy of the State was again changed and State/National Awardees were granted 1 year/2 year extension of service from the date of Notification. Vide Notification dated 30.11.2015, it was notified that the teachers, who had received cash award in lieu of receiving State/National awards they would also have option to get 1/2 years extension of service, as the case may be, being State/National Awardees, subject to the condition that the cash award received by such teachers would be deducted from the salary in 12 equal installments.
6. Petitioners are claiming benefit of extension of service on the basis of aforesaid Notifications issued in the year 2015, claiming that vide Notification dated 30.11.2015, right to petitioners has accrued for receiving benefit of 1 year/2 year of extension of service by refunding cash award.
7. Perusal of Notification dated 24.09.2015, clearly depicts that benefit of extension was extended w.e.f. 24.09.2015 and from condition notified in Notification dated 30.11.2015, it is also evident that this policy decision was applicable to the teachers, who were already in service at the time of issuance of notification as cash award received by such teachers was to be deducted from their salary in 12 equal installments and that would have been possible only in case concerned teacher was in service at the time of issuance of the notification.
8. Extension is granted to an employee who is in service. No extension can be after retirement. After retirement there can only be re-employment. Notification/Policy of respondent-State provides grant of extension but not re-employment. Therefore, claim of the petitioner is not sustainable.
9. There is another aspect in the present case. At the time of granting award to the petitioners, the policy in vogue was to pay cash award which remained in force till 2015 and petitioners had retired in the year 2009 and 2010, i.e. before change in the policy whereby benefit of extension of service was re-introduced to the State/National awardees and, therefore, this benefit is not available to the petitioners and thus, present petition is misconceived.
10. Petitioners are also placing reliance on a news item, dated 5.10.2018, published in Amar Ujala (Annexure P-7), wherein, it was published that already retired State/National Awardees teachers may also submit their application(s) for extension of service.
11. The news item is not a Notification of the State Government, but is a gist of the Policy of the State
Extension is granted to an employee who is in service. No extension can be after retirement.
The right to extension in service for National Award recipients cannot be negated by subsequent policy changes if it was accrued under prior notifications.
Extension in service for State Awardees includes entitlement to promotions and benefits unless explicitly restricted by policy.
Point of Law : A Government servant has no right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation and if he is retained beyond that age it is only in the exercise of the discretion of the Gove....
The eligibility for the teacher award is determined based on the date of application, not the date of the Selection Committee's consideration.
The court established that once a teacher has reached the age of superannuation, any extension of service must be explicitly provided by law, and the provisions of the UP Intermediate Education Act, ....
A Para Teacher improperly denied benefits under governmental notifications due to administrative delays retains rights entitled under these notifications.
Point of Law : Term “extension” is different from the term “re-employment”. Extension in service is continuance in service and the incumbent does not superannuate or retire on reaching the date of su....
State governments cannot narrowly interpret award notification criteria to deny service benefits to employees who have received national-level honors for community service rendered within the scope o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.