LALTA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Librarian vide order dtd. 16/9/1978 issued by Principal, Government Lal Chakradhar Shah College, Ambagarh Chowki, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner 's service conditions were governed by MP/CG Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990. According to the said Rules, the petitioner being an Assistant Librarian is stated to be an employee under the Teaching Department. The University Grand Commission (UGC), New Delhi vide Circular dtd. 19/10/2006 (Annexure-P/6) informed the Eduation Secretary all the All States Government and Union Territories and the Registrar of All Universities and Deemed Universities that age of superannuation for Assistant Librarians/College Librarians and Assistant Directors for Physical Education/College Directors of Physical Education would henceforth be 62 years. In pursuance of said circular, the State has also issued an order on 30/7/2007 (AnnexureP/7) and extended the age of superannuation in respect of Sports Teacher/Librarian till 62 years. Thereafter, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India, New Delhi has issued a circular on 31/12/2008 and introduced Schemes for revised pay scale and other provisions. In the said circular, an observation has been made with regard to age of superannuation and it is held that "Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education, the increase in the age of superannuation from the present sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 12/11/2010, whereby, the petitioner was superannuated with effect from 30/6/2011 is bad in law and arbitrary in nature as UGC in specific and laudable terms stated the age of superannuation of Assistant Librarian to be 62 years. He submits that only on the basis of subsequent circular dtd. 31/12/2008 (Annexure-P/8), the Authorities did not consider the case of present petitioner for further enhancement of age of superannuation and made difference between the teachers engaged in class room and Librarians, in case there is no shortage of the aforesaid posts. However, it is explicit from the said circular that standard age of superannuation of Librarian and Directors of Physical Education is 62 years. Therefore, this petition may be allowed and consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the aforesaid submission. He submits that service of the petitioner was treated as Class-III (Ministerial) employee and she continued on the said post till 30/6/2011 which is the date of her superannuation. He next submits that the petitioner, during her services, never possessed the qualification for being categorized as a teaching department employee. Therefore, the impugned order showing the age of superannuation of the petitioner on 30/6/2011 upon attaining the age of 60 years is not suffering from infirmity and does not call for interference by this Court.