HEMLAL SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this instant writ petition the petitioner has sought for declaration that Rule 56 (1-e) of the Fundamental Rules, applicable and amended by Chhattisgarh Shashkiye Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012 (for short 'the Adhiniyam of 2012') is ultra vires; quashment of the order dated 26.6.2015 (Annexure P-1); and benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation to the petitioner from 62 to 65 years, as has been enhanced for the Classroom Teachers.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Sports Teacher in Champa Devi Jain Night Post-Graduate College, Raipur. Said college was taken over by the State Government on 27.7.1984. Services of the petitioner' with other employees were absorbed by the State Government. On the date of filing of writ petition, the petitioner was posted in the Government College, Palari. Service of the petitioner is governed by the Chhattisgarh Educational Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for short 'the Rules of 1990'). For the purpose of governing field of age of superannuation of the government employees, the State Government has enacted Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short 'the Adhiniyam of 1967'). Under the Adhiniyam of 1967, Rule 56 of the CG Fundamental Rules has been made applicable by virtue of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam of 1967. Under Rule 56, as it stood prior to amendment in the year 2012, the age of superannuation of every government teacher was fixed i.e. 1st day of the month in which he/she attains the age of 62 years. The State Government has made amendment in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, which is made part of the Adhiniyam of 1967 and notified as the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012 (for short 'Adhiniyam of 2012'). By way of amendment in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, applicable to the Chhattisgarh, as substituted by Section 2 of the Adhiniyam of 1967, sub-rule (1-e) was inserted after Rule 2 (1-d). By amending Rule 56, the age of superannuation of the teachers, who are engaged in Classroom teaching activities in colleges, has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years. In the year 2014, the petitioner filed writ petition challenging amendment on the ground of sub-classification to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, whereas, some other employees have filed writ petition in the year 2012. All the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 9.12.2014 with a direction to the petitioners therein to file a representation before the State Government and the State Government was directed to decide the same at the earliest within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. Respondent State considered the representation submitted by the petitioners and rejected the same vide order Annexure P-1, which made the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking for following reliefs;-

(3.) Respondent-State submitted reply to writ petition, while resisting the pleadings made therein it was further pleaded that the instant writ petition on the date of its filing was not maintainable as the petitioner stood retire from service w.e.f. 16.6.2015 whereas writ petition challenging conditions of service is filed on 14.9.2016 i.e. post retirement of petitioner. Fixation of age of superannuation is a matter primarily for the employer to decide unless the exercise of that power is assailed. The representation submitted by the petitioner was considered and rejected. The power and authority to fix service conditions for the employees of colleges run by the State is with the State. The role of University Grant Commission (UGC) is only to prescribe academic standards, qualification required for the teaching staff, facilities required in higher education etc. Enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years is to meet out the shortage of teachers involved in the Classroom teaching. There is no shortage of Sports Teachers, hence the petitioner being a Sports Officer/Teacher is not entitled for enhancement of age given to Classroom Teachers and pleaded for dismissal of writ petition being devoid of substance. The petitioner has not arrayed the UGC as party respondent and had not challenged the Regulation on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (for short 'the Regulation of 2010'), therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.