The provisions of Paragraph 26 of the Education Code, which have statutory force, empower the Governing Body of the college to extend the service of a teacher till the end of the academic year if the date of retirement falls during the academic session.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-authority holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any post-retiral pensionary benefits, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for a direction to the respondents to release the aforesaid benefits treating him to be in service on 1-4-1987, extending to him the benefits available under the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 as amended from time to time bringing within its purview the Full-time employees, officers and teachers of the University w.e.f. 1-4-1987.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate, representing the respondents, and have carefully perused the record.

3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was duly appointed as an Assistant Professor in Madhav Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior, on 9-11-1970. Taking in account his date of birth, he was to attain the age of superannuation on 31-3-1987. However, exercising the jurisdiction vested in it vide Para 26 of the Education Code, which has statutory force, the Governing Body of the College extended the service period of the petitioner till 30th June, 1987 till the end of the academic year.

4. The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, however, approved the extension of the period of service of the petitioner till 30th of April 1987 i.e. the end of academic-session. In view of the decision of the Ayog to treat the extension of the service period of the petitioner only till the end of the academic sessions i.e. 30-4-1987, the payment of salary for the months of May and June 1987 was withheld by the respondents.

5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents by means of a Writ Petition No. 419 of 1990, decided on 21-4-1995, whereunder the respondents were directed to pay him the salary for the aforesaid months noticing that the petitioner had actually worked and as a matter of fact his case was duly recommended, and the petitioner was relieved from the charge of his post on 1-7-1987.

6. The petitioner had applied for the release of the post-retiral pensionary benefits to him, but that was declined on the ground that the extension of service period till the end of the academic session had to be taken, as directed by the State Government to be a reappointment only, which was not liable to be taken into account as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted various representations to the respondent-authority seeking release of the post-retiral pensionary benefits treating him to be in service on the relevant date. But, the respondents negatived his claim reiterating their stand that the petitioner had to be treated as having retired from service on 31-3-1987 i.e. before the relevant date and was not entitled to any post-retiral benefits as claimed.

7. In the present case, respondent No. 2 has filed a separate counter-affidavit. The respondent No. 2 has supported the case of the petitioner asserting that the petitioner has been allowed to continue till the end of the academic year 1987 by the Governing Body exercising the jurisdiction vested in it as contemplated under Paragraph 26 of the Education Code and the petitioner in fact continued to be in service till 30th June 1987. He was, therefore, entitled to the post-retiral benefits made available under the Self-Finance Pension Scheme, 1992, as claimed.

8. The respondent No. 1 has filed a separate counter-affidavit in opposition to the Writ Petition. In this counter-affidavit the contesting respondent has reiterated that the date of superannuation of the petitioner had to be taken as 31-3-1987 and could not be deemed to have been altered in view of his continuance in service thereafter on the strength of the order passed by the Governing Body, as claimed. It has further been asserted that the period of service of the petitioner subseq