Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Krishna Kumar Shukla - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And Others - Respondents
Writ A. No. 1736 of 2024
Decided On : 29-05-2024
RETIREMENT - UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Regulation 21 - The court discussed the provisions of Regulation 21 under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which provides for automatic extension of service for teachers retiring between April 2 and March 30 of the academic session. The court interpreted these provisions to mean that the petitioner, who was a State Teachers Awardee, was not entitled to continue beyond the age of superannuation as the regulations did not provide for such an extension. The court concluded that the retirement notice was lawful and did not violate the petitioner's rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lecturer who was awarded the State Teachers Award, challenged a retirement notice stating he would retire on April 30, 2024, despite being entitled to service extension until March 31, 2025, under Regulation 21 of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the retirement notice was in accordance with the regulations and that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the academic session as the provisions did not support such an extension for those who had already received a service extension until 65 years of age.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue in service until the end of the academic session despite the retirement notice issued, and whether the provisions of Regulation 21 were applicable in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Regulation 21 must be interpreted strictly, and since the petitioner had already been granted an extension until the age of 65, he was not entitled to further benefits under the academic session provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the retirement notice and the interpretation of the relevant regulations.
JUDGMENT :
(Shree Prakash Singh, J.) :
1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Advocate assisted by Sri Sant Singh Rayakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Vivek Shukla, Sri Pankaj Patel and Sri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels for the State, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 and Sri R.K. Singh Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 10th January 2024, whereby, the petitioner was forced to unlawfully retired on 30th April 2024, and further a writ of mandamus is sought, commanding and directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue on his post of Ad-hoc Principal till end of Academic Session, that is 31.03.2025, in terms of Regulation 21 of the Regulations framed under Chapter IIIrd of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921, with full salary and other benefits.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Agriculture), on 3rd March 1989, in Bakshi Ka Talab Inter College District Lucknow, thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularised with effect from 7th August 1993, by the order of Deputy Director (Secondary Education), VIth Region, Lucknow, vide order dated 17th October 1994, and since then he was working to his best of efficiency and his work and conduct was always above board.
4. Later on, the petitioner was recommended for State Teachers Award 2019-2020, and he was awarded with the State Teachers Award on 3rd September 2020 and since, State Government had a policy for the State Teachers Awardees for extension of services till 65 years’ of age, which came into effect vide Government Orders dated 30th December 2014 and 30th June 2015, and in view thereof, the petitioner was also accorded the extension of services up to 65 years’ of age, vide order dated 29th March 2022, and thus, the petitioner was to be retired on attaining the age of 65 years, but the petitioner felt aggrieved by the issuance of the retirement notice dated 10th January 2024, wherein, the date of superannuation, is shown as 30th April 2024, on the premises that he is entitled for the benefit of Academic Session, that is up till 31th March 2025, in terms of the provisions invisaged under Regulation 21 of the Regulations made under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1921).
5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order/retirement notice dated 10th January 2024 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the same is passed in the most mechanical and arbitrary manner. He submits that the Regulation 21 of the Regulations framed under Chapter IIIrd of the Act, 1921, very specifically provides for automatic extension of service period, by way of session benefits to those who are retiring between second day of April and 30th March of Academic Session. Therefore, the retirement notice dated 10th January 2024, wherein, the date of superannuation is mentioned in between the aforesaid period but no session benefit is given, is perverse on its face and suffers arbitrariness.
6. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is regularly teaching and taking classes, satisfactorly and he is fit, mentally and physically. He submits that if the petitioner gets retired in the mid academic session, the education of students will adversely suffer and affect and as the policy makers were aware about the instant hardship, therefore, a provision under Chapter III, Regulation 21 under the regulations, was framed. Next contention is that the provisions of Chapter III, Regulation 21, have it’s perspective and constructive interpretation which is very clear that the interest of the students is a paramount goal of a welfare state and therefore, once a State awardee is completing his or her age, in between 2nd April to 30th March
The court established that once a teacher has reached the age of superannuation, any extension of service must be explicitly provided by law, and the provisions of the UP Intermediate Education Act, ....
Point of Law : A Government servant has no right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation and if he is retained beyond that age it is only in the exercise of the discretion of the Gove....
Teachers superannuating mid-academic session entitled to re-employment till June 30 under university statutes; provision applies universally; post-superannuation amendments prospective, cannot divest....
Point of law: State Government is empowered to make Rules prescribing the conditions of service of officers, teachers and its employees appointed under Section 6 of the Act, 1972, the conditions of s....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the age of superannuation for Principals and the requirement of a Ph.D. degree for continuation beyond the age of 62, as mandated by the UG....
The court established that the definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to retirement benefits at 65 years.
Vested rights to pension cannot be revoked by subsequent amendments or government orders unless explicitly stated to have retrospective effect; the age of superannuation is determined by existing reg....
UGC Regulations prescribing superannuation at 62 years for college teachers not binding on State Government employees unless expressly adopted by State via service rule amendments.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the retirement age for Persian teachers as per the notification, emphasizing the requirement of a show cause notice prior ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
