Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 292
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
T.VELVALLI – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
W.P.No.8713 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.9735 and 9736 of 2024
Mrs.R.Vaigai, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Ajay Khose, Mr.G.Nagarajan, CBSE Counsel for RR-1 and 2, Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh, for RR-3 and 4
The court held that in the absence of any enabling rule or provision, the petitioner, a librarian, is not entitled to the extension of retirement date until the end of the academic year, and the adoption of Fundamental Rule 56 by the third respondent Foundation does not put the petitioner at a disadvantage requiring prior approval of the Central Government under Section 20 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Act 1993.
Headnote:
Retirement - Besant Arundale Senior Secondary School - Fundamental Rule 56, Kalakshetra Foundation Act 1993 - The court held that the petitioner, a librarian, is not entitled to extension of retirement date until the end of the academic year as there is no enabling rule or provision, and the adoption of Fundamental Rule 56 by the third respondent Foundation does not put the petitioner at a disadvantage requiring prior approval of the Central Government under Section 20 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Act 1993.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, working as a librarian in Besant Arundale Senior Secondary School, challenged the order informing her of retirement on 31.05.2024 upon attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner contended that as per the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws, employees should be allowed to retire at the end of the academic year, and the third respondent Foundation has been extending the retirement date for other teaching staff until the end of the academic year.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws which allowed extension of retirement until the end of the academic year have been repealed, and the third respondent Foundation has adopted the Fundamental Rules of the Central Government, which provide for retirement upon attaining the age of 60 years. The court held that in the absence of any enabling rule or provision, the petitioner is not entitled to the extension of retirement date until the end of the academic year, and the adoption of Fundamental Rule 56 by the third respondent Foundation does not put the petitioner at a disadvantage requiring prior approval of the Central Government under Section 20 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Act 1993.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, a librarian, is entitled to extension of retirement date until the end of the academic year as per the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws or the past practice of the third respondent Foundation.2. Whether the adoption of Fundamental Rule 56 by the third respondent Foundation is in violation of Section 20 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Act 1993, which requires prior approval of the Central Government for any alteration of terms and conditions of service to the disadvantage of the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws which allowed extension of retirement until the end of the academic year have been repealed, and the third respondent Foundation has adopted the Fundamental Rules of the Central Government, which provide for retirement upon attaining the age of 60 years.2. In the absence of any enabling rule or provision, the petitioner is not entitled to the extension of retirement date until the end of the academic year.3. The adoption of Fundamental Rule 56 by the third respondent Foundation does not put the petitioner at a disadvantage requiring prior approval of the Central Government under Section 20 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Act 1993, as there was no pre-existing rule or entitlement for the petitioner to continue until the end of the academic year.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to the extension of retirement date until the end of the academic year, and the adoption of Fundamental Rule 56 by the third respondent Foundation does not violate Section 20 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Act 1993.
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 12.02.2024, whereby, the petitioner was informed that she would be retiring from services of the organisation on 31.05.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation and for a declaration declaring the notification issued by the third respondent Foundation in their website for filling up the post of Librarian in Besant Arundale Senior Secondary School before the date of retirement of the petitioner which falls due on 31.03.2025 as illegal and invalid and consequently, to forbear the respondent Nos.3 and 4 from selecting, filling up and appointing any person as Librarian in the said School.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is working as a Librarian in the Besant Arundale Senior Secondary School which is a unit of the third respondent Foundation. She completes 60 years of age as of 25.05.2024. The above-mentioned School is affiliated to the CBSE. The academic session of the CBSE Schools starts on the 1st of April of every year and ends on the 31st of March of the subsequent year. By the Affiliation Bye- laws issued by the CBSE, as per the amended Rule 30.1, every employee, including the Head of the institution, shall retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years. However, if the date of the superannuation falls during the academic session, the concerned employee, including the Head of the institution will retire at the end of the academic session. Therefore, the retirement date of the petitioner will only be on 31.03.2025. The consistent practice of the third respondent Foundation is to permit the employees to continue until the end of the academic year and a list of 16 employees, whose retirement was extended until the end of the academic year, is also furnished in the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition. Even though the writ petitioner is working as a Librarian, she is treated on par with the teaching staff for all practical purposes and is even mentioned in the list of the teaching staff. Therefore, the petitioner alone cannot be singled out and subjected to discriminatory treatment, hence the Writ Petition.
3. This Writ Petition is resisted by the fourth respondent by filing a counter-affidavit. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the third respondent Foundation is an autonomous body constituted under an Act of Parliament, namely, Kalakshetra Foundation Act, 1993. The School is run by the third respondent Foundation and is affiliated to the CBSE. The age of retirement of the employees in the said School under the Foundation is 60 years and the petitioner attains the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years as of 25.05.2024 and as such, was sought to be retired from the afternoon of 31.05.2024.
4. The date of retirement is governed by Fundamental Rule 56 (of the Central Government Service) which is applicable in respect of the third respondent institution. The reliance placed by the petitioner in respect of the Bye-law 30.1 is incorrect. The said Bye-law is also repealed by the CBSE itself and is no longer in force. As per the amended Bylaws, for the conditions of service which include the age of retirement, the institutions are given liberty to adopt the service rules of the employees of the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government in the instant case would be the Central Government. Therefore, the third respondent Foundation has adopted the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules applicable to the Central Government servants. There is no enabling provision to extend the age of retirement beyond the period of 60 years as the same is specifically mentioned in Fundamental Rule 56.
5. A reply affidavit is also filed to the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has stated that all along the petitioner was treated only as a teaching staff and even in respect of other service conditions, this Court, by the order, dated 09.07.2010 in W.A.No.1360 of 2006, held that the post of Librar
