U K SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for by the petitioner through the instant Writ Petition is that, the respondents should treat the petitioner to have worked up till the age of 62 as the age of superannuation in the College Code, 28 was stood amended from 60 to 62.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor under the respondents No. 2 to 4. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, the age of superannuation under the rules governing the field was 60. As per that, the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation on 31/08/2000.

(3.) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, vide AnnexureP/6 dated 14/10/1998, the Higher Education Department had issued a circular to all the Government Colleges as also the Aided Government Institutions intimating the fact that the Government is in the process of considering enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 62 and that since the legislation is in the process, the department had instructed all the establishments both the Government as well as the Non-Government aided Colleges to ensure that in between the persons who are crossing the age of superannuation are not to be discontinued from service. That though, there was such a circular issued, but the respondents it is said had discontinued the services of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/08/2000.