There is an Inter College by the name of Vidhut Parishad Kanya Inter College, Kasimpur Power House, Aligarh (the Institution). The Institution has been recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (the Act, 1921).
Smt. Vijay Rani Parashar-the petitioner was appointed in the Institution as a Teacher vide letter dated 8.7.1972. She retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.6.2006 in pursuance of Shiksha Sewa Viniyamawali framed by the Power Corporation which provides that Teachers in the Intermediate College established by the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board now known as U.P. Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. shall retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years.
According to the petitioner as per the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years.
At the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court by its order dated 10.4.2006 directed that till further orders the petitioner would be entitled to work upto the age of 60 years provided she gives an undertaking before the respondent no. 2-Superintendent Engineer Vidhut Utpadan Mandal-V and Manager Vidhut Parishad Kanya Inter College, Kasimpur Power House, Post Kasimpur District Aligarh that in the even the writ petition is dismissed she will return the salary with interest at 6% per annum. The petitioner, however, died on 11.6.2009 and she has been substituted by her legal heirs.
I have heard Shri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondent no. 4.
The short controversy in the case is whether the petitioner was entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years in terms of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 or she was to be treated to retire on attaining the age of 58 years as per the Shiksha Sewa Viniyamawali framed by the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board.
This controversy had also come up earlier before this Court in several cases and this Court had taken the view that the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 would be applicable in the Institution and, therefore, the Management cannot take the plea that the Shiksha Sewa Viniyamawali which provides the age of superannuation as 58 years would over-ride the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921. Some of these judgments have been passed in W.P. No. 24222 of 1999 (Daroga Singh and others Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board) decided on 4.10.2002, W.P. No. 35792 of 1996 (Smt. Shaila Garg Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and another) and connected matters decided on 30.5.1997, and W.P. No. 9244 of 1995 (Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs. Secretary, U.P. S.E.B. And others) decided on 10.9.1999.
It is informed by Shri Anil Mehtotra that in some of these cases special appeals were filed which are still pending but as pointed out by Shri Ranjeet Saxena in none of the cases interim order has been granted.
In Special Appeal No. 541 of 2003 (U.P. Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vs. Brahmanand Gupta), the Court while entertaining the appeal has directed that if the special appeal is allowed, the respondent shall refund the entire salary paid to him for the period for which he has worked after attaining the age of 58 years. This order is dated 15.7.2003 and has been filed as Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit. Similar order has been passed in Special Appeal No. 553 of 2003 (U.P. Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mahipal Singh ) on 15.7.2003.
An identical controversy came up before a Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 18340 of 2004 (Rama Shanker Singh Vs. U.P. Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.) reported in 2006(4) ESC 2826 and the Court considering the provisions of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations as amended by the Notification dated 6.1.2005 has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the impugned orders regarding retirement of the petitioner, therein, on attaining the age of 58 years.
In the present case, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 21.11.2005 which is also a notice intimating the erstwhile petitioner-Smt. Vijay Rani Parashar that her date of birth being 3.2.1948 she would retire on 30.6.2006 and therefore she would be superannuated on that date. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 24.1.2008 whereby the erstwhile petitioner has been informed that in terms of the interim order of the Court dated 10.4.2006 she would be retire on 30.6.2008 and would retire on that date.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the amended Regulation 21 of Chapter III as amended on 6.1.2005 the age of superannuation of the Teachers has now been increased from 60 years to 62 years. Thus the erstwhile petitioner-Smt. Vijay Rani Parashar continued in service but unfortunately she died on 11.6.2009 and, therefore, she as Teacher has drawn salary upto that date.
However, in view of the various decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove, and the fact that since I am not inclined to take any view different from the view already taken, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.11.2005 and 24.1.2008 are quashed. It is directed that since the erstwhile petitioner-Smt. Vijay Rani Parashar, under the interim order, had continued to be in service till 11.6.2009, when she expired, the salary drawn by her will be subject to the final outcome in the special appeals pending before this Court. The retiral dues of the erstwhile petitioner and terminal benefits accruing to her will also be subject to the decision of the special appeals.
In the interim, the petitioners, as substituted, will continue to get the terminal benefits treating the age of the retirement of the erstwhile petitioner as 62 years.
Order Date :- 18.5.2012 o.k.