Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, Kh.Nobin Singh, JJ.
Hemam Jamuna Devi – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 42 Of 2020 With MC(W.A.) No.52 Of 2020
Decided On : 22-04-2021
Fundamental Rule – Rule 56 – Termination of Services – Unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C) is appellant – Her challenge in said writ petition was to order issued by Deputy Director (Admn.), Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) – By order, Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition – As a result, services of appellant as Professor-cum-Principal of College of Nursing, RIMS, were terminated w.e.f. 30.04.2020, vide order issued by the Director, RIMS – By interim order passed in M.C(W.A) filed in this appeal, this Court directed respondents not to fill up post of Professor-cum-Principal of Nursing College, RIMS.
Finding of the court : Practice adopted by counsel appearing in this Court for the Union of India in producing documents without a supporting affidavit, and without even making known its stand through a counter, needs tobe decried in no uncertain terms – It is indeed unfortunate that despite this matter being taken up at the appeal stage and despite several opportunities being given to the Union of India to come forward with its stand, it chose to remain silent but seeks to justify its interference in the functioning of this autonomous body by producing irrelevant documents – Court need say no more – Court finds that understanding of RIMS, Imphal, that appellant could only be continued as faculty after attaining the age of 65 years and not against the faculty post of Professor-cum- Principal of College is unsustainable on facts and in law – Order was without any foundation as age of superannuation of appellant already stood enhanced to 65 years by virtue of Bye-law 8 read with Central Government’s order and decision of RIMS, implementing same – It needed no further resolution to that effect by Executive Council or Central Government’s approval thereof.
Result : Writ Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr.B.P.Sahu, learned senior counsel for the appellant; Mr.S. Suresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India; and Mr.M.Devananda, learned counsel, assisted by Mr.K.Doungel, Deputy Director (Admn.), RIMS, Imphal, and Mr.Santosh Achom, L.D.C., RIMS, Imphal.
2. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C) No.208 of 2020 is the appellant. Her challenge in the said writ petition was to the order dated 01.05.2020 issued by the Deputy Director (Admn.), Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, Manipur. By order dated 22.07.2020, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition. As a result, the services of the appellant as the Professor-cum-Principal of the College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal, were terminated w.e.f. 30.04.2020, vide order dated 27.07.2020 issued by the Director, RIMS, Imphal.
3. By interim order dated 25.03.2021 passed in M.C(W.A) No. 52 of 2020 filed in this appeal, this Court directed the respondents not to fill up the post of Professor-cum-Principal of the Nursing College, RIMS, Imphal.
4. The appellant entered the service of the RIMS, Imphal, after due selection, as the Professor-cum-Principal of its College of Nursing at Imphal on 25.03.2013. While so, she attained the age of 60 years on 30.04.2020. Thereupon, the order dated 01.05.2020, impugned in the writ petition, came to be issued by the Deputy Director (Admn.), RIMS, Imphal, stating as under:-
2. Her continuation of service as faculty member, College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal is subject to the final decision of the Ministry in the matter and excess payment to her, if any, shall be refunded to the institute by her either by adjustment against future payments due to her or otherwise.
3. This has the approval of the Director, RIMS, Imphal.’
5. Aggrieved by the aforestated order, the appellant filed the subject writ petition. Her claim therein was that she had been downgraded/degraded to the post of faculty member by the said order without any reason and without following any procedure. She asserted that the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty had been enhanced from 60 to 65 years and therefore, the order of demotion was illegal and malafide.
6. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the RIMS, Imphal, through Mr.K.Doungel, its Deputy Director (Admn.).Therein, he stated that Bye-law 8 of the Bye-Laws of the RIMS, Imphal, provided that the age of superannuation of employees would be governed by the rules framed or orders issued by the Central Government and, in this connection, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, vide order dated 28.06.2010, had stated that the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing in Central Government nursing institutions was enhanced from 60 years to 65 years, subject to the condition that such nurses continued to function as faculty members after the age of 60 years.
The Deputy Director further stated that as the appellant was holding the post of Professor-cum-Principal, College of Nursing, and had completed the age of 60 years on 30.04.2020, the RIMS, Imphal, extended her age of superannuation from 60 years to 65 years as a faculty member, by the order dated 01.05.2020, in compliance with its Bye-Laws and the order of the Central Government. He went on to state the appellant would continue to function as a faculty member in the rank and pay of Professor in the College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal. He asserted that the instructions of the Central Government explicitly mentioned that the retirement age can be enhanced to 65 yea
Point of Law : Service Law - Professor-cum-Principal of College – Age of Termination - Appellant could only be continued as faculty after attaining age of 65 years and not against faculty post of Pro....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.15,600-29,100+GP Rs.5,400/- as fixed for the Senior Physiotherapist in the Central Civil Se....
The age of superannuation for university directors is governed by AICTE regulations, which allow for retirement at 65 years, and any university resolution attempting to reduce this age must comply wi....
Project staff in centrally-funded research projects hosted at state institutions are governed by host state's superannuation rules, not central bylaws; age extension to 62 years applies only to speci....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
Enhancement of superannuation age to 65 years is conditional benefit subject to performance review by government committee; not vested right; policy valid despite university autonomy concerns; judici....
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
