Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGANNATH PRASAD BAJPAI versus D.I.O.S. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagannath Prasad Bajpai v. D.I.O.S. & Another - WRIT - A No. 27010 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 17620 (12 October 2006)

 

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. 27010 of 2003

Sri Jagannath Prasad Bajpai

Versus

District Inspector of Schools and others

...

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.  

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner had filed an application on 6.7.2002 opting to retire at the age of 58 years. Under the Rules, the petitioner could have only applied till 1.7.2000 in that particular year, clearly the application of the petitioner itself was not maintainable. Even though the District Inspector of Schools countersigned the application of the petitioner on 10.7.2002.

When the petitioner came to know about this, the petitioner withdrew his option on 27.8.2002. The petitioner date of birth is 2.7.1944 and he was to attain the age of superannuation on 13.6.2003.

It is the contentions of the petitioner that since the petitioner withdrew his option to retire at 58 years, he should have continued till 13.6.2005. The ground taken in the writ petition is that in the scheme as provided in the relevant Government Order as well as in the relevant rules of the year 1981, acceptance of the option to retire at 58 years could have only been done by the Deputy Director and communication thereof was necessary to the employee concerned. Mere signature of the District Inspector of Schools on such option as was shown in the present case on 10.7.2002 could not be taken neither as acceptance nor could any kind of finality be attached to such counter signature.

In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Prabha Kakkar versus Joint Director of Education and ors., reported in 2000 (2) ESC 1118 (All.).

In view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Kakkar (supra), the present petition is liable to be allowed. As the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 10.7.2002 cannot be said to be full-fledged acceptance of the option to retire voluntarily, the petitioner will be deemed to be continued till attaining the age of 62 years as his prevalent now.

The writ petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs.

Dated 12.10.2066

Rk.27010.03


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.