Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUJAN CHANDRA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sujan Chandra v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 5534 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 9557 (18 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                        Court No.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5534 of 2005

Sujan Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in Uchchatar Madhyamik Balika Vidyalaya run by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner was given a notice that she would be retiring at the end of session in which she attains the age of 60 years. The petitioner represented to the respondents that she would be entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 4.2.2004, whereby the age of superannuation of the teachers governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has been extended from 60 to 62 years. However, by means of the impugned order dated 28.12.2004, the application of the petitioner has been rejected and it has been held that the petitioner be retired at the end of academic session in which she attains the age of 60 years. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A further prayer has been made that a direction be issued in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to teach till the end of session in which she attains the age of 62 years.

I have heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri A.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the contesting respondents no. 3 and 4 and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

Sri A.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the contesting respondents no.3 and 4 does not dispute the fact that the respondent-school is governed by Chapter III Rule 21 of the Regulations famed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. By the Government Order dated 4.2.2004, the age of superannuation had been extended from 60 years to 62 years and was to be applicable to all the institutions governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As such, denial of the benefit of such Government Order in the case of the petitioner cannot be justified. It has further been stated that in similar circumstances and with regard to the teachers of other schools run by the same Kanpur Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, this Court, vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2007, allowed the writ petitions no. 46433 of 2005 and 11023 of 2006 and granted the benefit of continuity in service till the age of 62 years. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that ratio of the said judgment dated 2.5.007 would squarely cover this case also.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that the benefit of Government Order dated 4.2.2004 would be extended to the petitioner and she would be treated to continue in service till the end of academic session in which she attains the age of 62 years and shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Whatever amount is found to be due to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid direction, shall be paid to her within four months from today, failing which the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it became due, till actual payment. It is, however, clarified that in case if the amount is paid within the aforesaid stipulated time, the respondent shall not be liable to pay any interest.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.          

Dt/-18.5.2007

Ru


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.