VINOD KUMAR TANDON Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the legality and validity of the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner at the age of 60 years. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hari Dutt Sharma, 1993 Supp2 SCC 192the relevant facts of the case in hand, have to be stated in brief.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Superintendent in Blind School, Raipur vide order dated 5th August, 1977 (Annexure PAS). From 1977 to 1990 the petitioner remained posted as Superintendent in Blind School, Raipur and thereafter he was transferred to Blind School Jagdalpur. Thereafter, he was again sent back to Raipur in the year 1992, where he remained posted till his promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur in November, 1999.

(3.) The petitioner claims that in view of the explanation appended to Rule 56 of The Fundamental Rules, amended vide the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, he is entitled to the status of a Teacher' because he was appointed for the post of Teacher, he actually worked as Teacher and taught classes. According to him, the nature of duties assigned to a Superintendent, as indicated in the advertisement (Annexure P/4), clearly makes out that the nature of duties of Superintendent is akin to that of a Teacher. Therefore, the petitioner., who had completed 20 years of teaching in his capacity as Superintendent, was entitled to be treated as Teacher' for the benefit of age of retirement prescribed for the Teacher', under the Act of 1967. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the terms of advertisement, which reads as under: