Back
1997 Supreme(All) 1553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.K. SETH, J.
Triloki Nath Saxena - Appellant
Versus
Rookee's High School And Others - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 3364 of 1983
Decided On : 01-08-1997
For the Appellant : Pramod Kumar Jain and P.N. Saxena.
For the Respondent: Sabhajit Yadav and S.C.
The provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder, as well as the Circular issued by the Ministry of Defence, were applicable to the Petitioner, a teacher employed by the Cantonment Board, and entitled him to continue till the age of 60 years.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - RETIREMENT AGE - CANTONMENT BOARD EMPLOYEE - APPLICABILITY OF U.P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 AND REGULATIONS - CIRCULAR ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE - INTERPRETATION AND EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a teacher in a High School run by the Cantonment Board, Bareilly, challenged the orders retiring him at the age of 58 years, contending that he was entitled to continue till the age of 60 years as per the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (1921 Act) and the Regulations framed thereunder.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the 1921 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder were applicable to the Petitioner, as the School was a recognized Institution and had been included in the grant-in-aid scheme by the State Government. The Court further held that the Circular issued by the Ministry of Defence, directing that teachers of Cantonment Board's Schools be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years, was binding on the Cantonment Board and had the effect of supplanting or supplementing the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the 1921 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder were applicable to the Petitioner, a teacher employed by the Cantonment Board? 2. Whether the Circular issued by the Ministry of Defence, directing that teachers of Cantonment Board's Schools be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years, was binding on the Cantonment Board?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the 1921 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder were applicable to the Petitioner, as the School was a recognized Institution and had been included in the grant-in-aid scheme by the State Government. The Court relied on Section 16G of the 1921 Act, which governs the conditions of service of teachers in recognized Institutions, and Section 16H, which empowers the State Government to declare that the provisions of Section 16G shall apply to recognized Institutions maintained by Local Bodies. 2. The Court held that the Circular issued by the Ministry of Defence, directing that teachers of Cantonment Board's Schools be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years, was binding on the Cantonment Board. The Court relied on Section 16H(2) of the 1921 Act, which provides that the application of the provisions of Section 16G to recognized Institutions maintained by Local Bodies shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law for the time being in force.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the Petitioner was eligible and entitled to continue till the age of 60 years, being the age of superannuation, as provided under Regulation 21, Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act. The Court also quashed the impugned orders retiring the Petitioner at the age of 58 years and directed the Respondents to make available to the Petitioner all such benefits as would be admissible in law to him, if not already paid, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum simple payable thereon.
D.K. Seth, J.
The Petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in Rookee's High School on 8th July, 1951. He was promoted to the post of Principal of the said School on 10th January, 1972. The said School was a High School since 1937 and was being run by the Cantonment Board, Bareilly. The School was brought within the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government even before 8th of July, 1951. The Petitioner claims that by reason of the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 1921 Act'), as amended from time to time uptil 1983, and the Regulations framed thereunder, the Petitioner was eligible to continue till 60 years of age which he would be attaining on 31st of July, 1985. The Petitioner was informed by a letter dated 10th December, 1982 (Annexure 3) that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on 25th July, 1983 and, therefore, would retire from 31st July, 1983. Thereupon the Petitioner made a representation on 16th March. 1983 which was considered by the Cantonment Board in its meeting held on 3rd June, 1983. He was sought to be retired on 31st July, 1983 on attainment of the age of 58 years by Resolution No. 11 dated 3rd June, 1983 which is Annexure 5' to the writ petition. The said Resolution was communicated to the Petitioner by a letter dated 1st July, 1983 which is Annexure 6'. The orders contained in Annexures 3' and 6' have since been challenged by means of this writ petition.
2. Mr. P.N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that by reason of Section 16G of the 1921 Act, the provisions relating to superannuation of a teacher contained in the said Act and the Regulations framed thereunder being applicable to the Petitioner, he is eligible and entitled to retire at the age of 60 years. He had referred to various provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the 1921 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder in support of his contention. He had also relied on a few decisions with which I shall be dealing with at the appropriate stage. He points out that by a Circular dated 21st August, 1972 issued by the Ministry of Defence which is Annexure 7' to the writ petition, the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to retire at the age of 60 years.
3. The Cantonment Board Respondent had filed their counter-affidavit and made out a case that since the School is run by the Cantonment Board and the Petitioner being an employee of the said Board, the condition of his service is governed by the relevant Rules governing the services of the employees of the Board. Therefore, according to the Board's Rules, the Petitioner is required to be retired at the age of 58 years. The provision of the 1921 Act and the Regulation framed thereunder does not apply. The alleged Circular contained in Annexure 7' being only a Circular cannot supersede the statutory provision and, as such, is not enforceable.
4. Mr. Sabhajit Yadav, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that in view of Section 9(4) of the 1921 Act, the State Government has power to alter, amend or modify the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act but the State Government having not specified any thing in respect of the Teachers serving under the Cantonment Board, the Petitioner cannot come within the purview of the 1921 Act.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The case made out in the counter-affidavit shows that by reason of Section 116, Chapter VIII of the Cantonments Act, if the funds at its disposal permit reasonable provisions are to be made for establishing and maintaining or assisting Primary Schools while Section 117 (1) provides furthering educational objects by measures other than the establishment and maintenance of Primary Schools. In exercise of powers u/s 280 (c). Rules have been framed by the Central Government in respect of appointment, control, supervision, suspension, removal, dismissal and punishment of servants of the Board which is titled as Cantonment Fund Se
