SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(J&K) 434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.
Mohammad Farooq Mir - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No.492 of 2018, IA No.01 of 2018, IA No.02 of 2018
Decided On : 20-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.S. Latief, Advocate with Mr. Zahid Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sheikh Umar, Advocate.

Mere recommendations do not confer an indefeasible right, and service conditions of employees are governed by respective service rules of each institute.

Headnote:

Age of Superannuation - Employment Dispute - National Institute of Technology Act, 2007, UGC Notifications - F.No.5-3/2012.TS-III dated 31.01.2013, F.No. 03-4/2013-TS dated 12.07.2013, Order No. F.3-1/94(PS)-7 dated 22.09.2006 - The court rejected the petitioner's claim to extend his age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years, emphasizing that mere recommendations do not confer an indefeasible right. It also dismissed the claim of discrimination, stating that service conditions are governed by respective service rules of each institute.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Librarian, sought to extend his age of retirement from 60 to 62 years based on recommendations from a Committee and the Board of Governors. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, however, did not accept the recommendations and notified the age of superannuation as 60 years.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the petitioner's claim to be meritless and dismissed the petition along with all connected MPs. It emphasized that mere recommendations do not confer an indefeasible right and rejected the claim of discrimination.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's claim to extend his age of retirement based on recommendations from the Committee and the Board of Governors, and the alleged discrimination compared to employees of other institutes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere recommendations do not confer an indefeasible right and emphasized that the service conditions of employees are governed by respective service rules of each institute, dismissing the claim of discrimination.

Final Decision: The petition of the petitioner was found to be meritless and was dismissed along with all connected MPs. Interim directions, if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Librarian in the then Regional Engineering College, Srinagar (subsequently, in the year 2003, renamed as the ‘National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, Hazratbal’) vide order No. 160 of 1989 dated 5th of August, 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner, while working as Assistant Librarian, moved a representation before the competent authority seeking benefit of enhancement of the age of retirement from 60 years to 62 years, as has been done in the case of similarly situated Assistant Librarians working in various institutes of the technologies, universities, etc. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Committee who recommended to fix the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years. These recommendations of the Committee aforesaid were placed before the Board of Governors, wherein it was resolved that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of superannuation at the age of 62 years as per the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) order. However, the respondents in terms of notice issued vide endorsement No. NIT/PD/2017/4856-85 dated 6th of December, 2017, that is impugned herein this petition, have notified the age of superannuation of the petitioner as 30th of April, 2018, being 60 years. Faced with this fascicule of facts/ eventuality, the petitioner has, by medium of this writ petition, approached this Court in granting him the following reliefs:

“A) Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order bearing No. NIT/PD/2017/4856-85 dated 06th of December, 2017 as it relates to the petitioner.

(B) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his tenure of service i.e., upto age of 62 years as ordered by UGC and the Board of Governors in their 92nd and 93rd meetings.

(C) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the order impugned by treating the petitioner at par with the Assistant Librarians of various NITs in India as far as the age of superannuation is concerned i.e., 62 years and further not to cause any impediment in the smooth functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Librarian till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years which shall be inconsonance with the order/s of UGC and the Board of Governors.

(D) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upo0n the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his tenure at his present place of posting i.e. Radio Kashmir, Srinagar.

(E) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularly pay the salary of the petitioner.”

2. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have filed their objections, wherein they have stated that the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Srinagar, is an autonomous Institute of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and all the National Institutes of Technology (NITs) are governed by the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 and the statutes framed under the Act. It is stated that the University Grants Commission Act is not applicable to the NITs. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have also stated that the representation of the petitioner was forwarded to a Committee for its examination and, thereafter, the recommendations of the said Committee were placed before the Board of Governors (BOGs). The Board of Governors, in its meeting held on 3rd of June, 2016, while discussing the subject/ agenda, noted as under:

a. “The BOG in its 91st meeting dated 11-04-2016 after considering the report of the constituted committee decided to refer the matter to MHRD for their opinion.

b. However, MHRD order [F.No.5-3/2012.TS-III dated 31.01.2013 and F.No. 03-4/2013-TS dated 12.07.2013 (Copies Enclosed)] allows granting the benefit of age of superannuation as 62 years in favour of Asstt. Librarians subject to fulfilment of qualifications as prescribed by the UGC.

c. As per UGC notifications issued vide its order No. F.3









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top