ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DULARE LAL AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 483 of 2015, decided on 24th July, 2015)
By the Court.—The special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23 June 2015 in a writ petition filed by the appellants. The relief which the appellants sought was in the nature of a writ restraining the respondents from interfering with their working as assistant teachers until the end of academic session 2015-16 i.e. until 31 March 2016. The learned Single Judge finding no merit in the petition has dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment and order.
2. Both the appellants are assistant teachers in Bapu Inter College, Sadat, Ghazipur. The date of birth of the first appellant is 3 January 1953 and hence he attained the age of superannuation of 62 years on 2 January 2015. The date of birth of the second appellant is 14 January 1953 and he consequently attained the age of superannuation on 13 January 2015. At the material time, the date of superannuation fell within the midst of the academic session 2014-15. Hence, under the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the appellants were permitted to continue until 30 June 2015 which was the end of the academic session 2014-15. Now, it would be material to note that, at the relevant time, the academic session commenced from 1 July and ended on 30 June. The academic session as prescribed in Regulation 21 of Chapter III came to be altered following an amendment to Regulation 21 by a gazette notification dated 17 June 2015. The unamended and amended provisions of Regulation 21 read as follows:
Unamended Regulataion 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 iM+rk gS rks mls] ml n’kk dks NksM+dj 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 ns] 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 mUgha fof’k”V 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 iM+rh gS rks mldk lsok foLrj.k ml ekl dh vfUre frfFk rd iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxkA fdUrq ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh lsokfuo`fr dh frfFk fdlh ekg dh igyh rkjh[k dks iM+s rks mls iwoZorhZ ekg dh vfUre frfFk dks lsok fuo`Rr dj fn;k tk;sxkA
^^vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kid rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dks vf/ko’kZ o; 2 vizSy vkSj 31 ekpZ ds e/; es afdlh frfFk dks iM+rk gS rks mls] ml n”kk dks NksM++dj tcfd og Lo;a lsok foLrj.k u ysus gsrq fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko’kZ o; dh frfFk ls 2 ekg iwoZ ns nsa] 31 ekpZ rd lsok foLrj.k Loeso iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk rkfd xzh’ekodk”k ds iwoZ vizSy ekg es izfrLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr lsok foLrj.k dsoy mUgha fof”k’V 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 dks iM+rh gS rks mldk lsok foLrj.k ml ekl dh vfUre frfFk rd iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxkA fdUrq ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk fdlh ekg dh igyh rkjh[k dks iM+s rks mls iwoZorhZ ekg dh vfUre frfFk dks lsokfuo`Rr dj fn;k tk;sxkA**
3. As a result of the amended provisions, the academic year was changed to 1 April to 31 March of the following year. Under the then existing provisions, the superannuation of the appellants fell in the midst of academic session 2014-15 and hence they were permitted to continue until 30 June 2015. The issue is as to whether they would be entitled to a further extension of service until 31 March 2016 following the change in the academic year.
4. The learned Sin
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.