By the Court.—The special appeal has arisen from an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 9 July 2015. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the first respondent, who is the original petitioner, has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim order, and accordingly, extended the benefit of an order dated 7 May 2015 of a learned Single Judge in Ram Murti Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Service Single No. 2192 of 2015. The consequence of the impugned direction is that the services of the first respondent would stand extended until 31 March 2016 and he would be entitled to be paid salary as and when it accrues. The learned Single Judge however, recorded the statement of the first respondent that in the event that the writ petition is dismissed, the salary would be refunded. At the hearing of the special appeal, all the learned counsel agreed that the issue raised would govern the writ petition as well and hence, the petition itself may be disposed of at this stage, by the Division Bench.

2. The dispute relates to an Institution by the name of Lagsama Inter College, Gaunda, District Aligarh to which, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Act of 1921) and the rules and regulations framed thereunder are applicable. The appellant has claimed that he was appointed as a Lecturer in Geography on 24 July 1985. The first respondent who is the original petitioner was born on 12 July 1952. The first respondent was appointed as a Lecturer on 25 August 1975 and would have attained the age of superannuation, which is sixty two years, in July 2014. The Principal of the Institution retired on 30 June 2011 after which, the first respondent was appointed as Officiating Principal, being the senior-most Lecturer in the Institution. Since the date of superannuation fell in the midst of the academic session, he was allowed to continue, till 30 June 2015. The Committee of Management addressed a letter to the petitioner on 3 June 2015, stating that he would superannuate on 30 June 2015 and directed him to hand over charge to the senior-most Lecturer, namely the appellant herein. That led to the filing of the writ petition in which the first respondent sought a mandamusto the effect that he was entitled to be continued on his post until 31 March 2016.

3. The basis on which the writ petition was filed was that the State Government had issued a Government Order on 15 October 2014 by which the academic session was changed to 1 April to 31 March instead and in place of 1 July to 30 June. The first respondent relied on the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Act of 1921. According to the first respondent, since he was due to retire on 30 June 2015, he would be entitled to continue until the end of the academic session on the ground that his retirement was during the midst of the academic session. The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, has granted an interim order to the effect that the first respondent would continue until 31 March 2016 following an earlier interim order in another case.

Un-amended Regulation 21

Amended Regulation 21

vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kid rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dk vf/kos'k o; ok;k 2 tqykbZ vkSj 30 twu ds e/; esa fdlh frfFk dks iMrk gS rks mls] ml n'kk dks NksMdj tcfd og Lo;a lsok forj.k u ysus gsrq fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk ls nks ekg iwoZ ns n]s 30 twu rd lsok foLrj.k Lo;aeso iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk rkfd xzh"ekodk'k ds mijkUr tqykbZ esa izrhLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr lsok foLrj.k dsoy mUgh fof'k"B n'kkvksa esa iznku fd;k tk ldsxk] tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sA ;fn fdlh fyfid vFkok prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkfj;ksa ds vf/ko”kZ o; dh frfFk fdlh ekg ds e/; fdlh frfFk dks iMrh gS rks mldk lsok foLrj.k ml ek