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

1990 Supreme(All) 395

High Court of Allahabad
S.K.Dhaon & D.S.Sinha, JJ.
Brahma Dayal Mehta
Vs.
Senior Personnel Executive, Indian Drugs
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12492 of 1988
Decided On : Jun 29, 1990

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Vishnu Narain Singh, K.N.Tripathi

Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, applied to the petitioner, and the College was not 'maintained by the Central Government' within the meaning of Section 16-H of the Act, thus the petitioner was entitled to continue in employment till he attained the age of 60 years.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - SECTION 16-G - RETIREMENT AGE OF PRINCIPAL - APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 16-H - MAINTAINED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - MEANING AND SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the Principal of an Intermediate College run by the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL), a Government of India undertaking, challenged the communication informing him of his retirement at the age of 58 years, as per the company's rules, instead of 60 years, as per the Regulation 21 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the College was a recognized institution under the Act and the petitioner was appointed as Principal in accordance with the Act and Regulations. Section 16-G of the Act governed the conditions of service of employees in recognized institutions, and any agreement inconsistent with the Act or Regulations was void. Section 16-H exempted certain institutions from the operation of Section 16-G, but this exemption did not apply to institutions maintained by the Central Government or its instrumentalities.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, applied to the petitioner, who was the Principal of a College run by IDPL, a Government of India undertaking. 2. Whether the College was 'maintained by the Central Government' within the meaning of Section 16-H of the Act, and thus exempt from the provisions of Section 16-G.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 16-G of the Act applied to the petitioner, as the College was a recognized institution under the Act and the petitioner was appointed as Principal in accordance with the Act and Regulations. 2. The College was not 'maintained by the Central Government' within the meaning of Section 16-H of the Act. The word 'maintained' in Section 16-H meant 'to pay or furnish the means of keeping up of', and required a direct and rational relationship between the Central Government and the institution. IDPL, as an instrumentality of the Central Government, could not assert that the College was maintained by the Central Government.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the communication informing the petitioner of his retirement at the age of 58 years, and commanded the respondents not to retire the petitioner from service as Principal of the College till he attained the age of 60 years.

JUDGMENT

S.K.Dbaon, J.

1. The Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the I. D. P. L) has a unit situated in Virbhadra (Rishi- kesh) District Dehradun. I. D. P. L. runs an Intermediate College Virbhadra (hereinafter referred to as the College). On or before 28th April, 1988, the petitioner was the Principal of the College. His date of birth is 1st October, 1930. On 28th April, 1988, the Senior Personnel Executive of the I. D. P. L. informed the petitioner that he will retire from the service of the Company on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th September, 1988. The legality of this communication is being impugned in the present writ petition.

2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, although the petition has not been formally admitted as yet. However, with the consent of the counsel for the parties we heard this petition with a view to finally dispose of the same, We are, therefore, doing so. I. D. P. L. is a Government of India undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; The Central Government has hundred percent shares in it. The Company has various unit all over the country and one such unit is situated at Virbhadra (Rishikesh). The entire control over the Company is of the Ministry of Companies, Government of India, and the entire investment is of the Central Government. The College is recognised under section 2 (d) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purposes of preparing candidates to the examinations of the Board. The State Government does not give any grant- in-aid to the College. There is a duly approved scheme of administration prepared under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder and the College is run in accordance with the said scheme.

3. Annexure I to the writ petition is a photo stat copy of the communication dated 17th June, 1987, of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Garhwal Region, to the Secretary/Principal of the College wherein it is mentioned that the Deputy Director has accorded approval to the scheme of administration and a copy of the scheme is being forwarded. The scheme is before us. We are satisfied that the same is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. A perusal of the various clauses of the scheme of administration makes it clear that the terms and conditions of the service of the Principal of the College shall be those as laid down under the various provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. It is also provided that in the event of conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder or any other condition of service provided for elsewhere, the terms as laid down under the Act and the Regulations will operate. Annexure II to the writ petition is a photostat copy of the communication dated 1st January, 1972, issued to the petitioner whereby he was informed that he had been appointed as Principal. It was specifically stated therein :

"Your service conditions will be in accordance with the Provisions of Education (Amendment) Act, 1958 of the Government of U. P. and on the following terms and conditions :" There are other documents on record to indicate that the petitioner was duly appointed as Principal on the recommendation of the Selection Committee as envisaged by the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.

4. It is not in dispute that Regulation 21 as contained in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act provides that the age of retirement of a Principal is 60 years, it is also not in dispute that the age of retirement of an employee of IDPL as fixed under the relevant Rules of the Company is 58 years. The short question is whether the petitioner is entitled to continue as a Principal of the College, on the basis as Regulation 21, till he attains the age of 60 years.

Section 16-G of the Act, inter alia, provides that every person employed in a recog
















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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top