R P SAXENA Vs. NIEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was serving as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture. On 30.11.1979, he was appointed as Registrar on deputation by respondent No.1. In 1984, options were invited from employees who were serving on deputation with respondent No.1 for permanent absorption in the respondent/Institute. Petitioner exercised the option to be absorbed in the respondent/Institute and in public interest he was absorbed on permanent basis by the respondent. The Government of India conveyed the sanction of permanent absorption of the petitioner with the respondent No.1. It was stated in the letter sanctioning absorption that the detailed terms and conditions of permanent absorption of respondent No.1 would be issued separately. Prior to his permanent absorption, the respondent No.1/Institute issued an office note stating, inter alia, that the petitioner serving as Registrar on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.1979 was placed in the scale of Rs.1500-60-1800, which scale was revised to 1500-2000 with the approval of the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 21.3.1984 after having established the parity with the scales of pay for the post of Registrar in the Central Universities and having received the approval of the Government of India for the same vide their letter dated 2nd June, 1984. It was only after the petitioner was placed in the revised scale of Rs.1500-2000 and after his having been given parity with the post of Registrar in the Central Universities that he was requested to exercise his option to be absorbed as Registrar in the respondent No.1/Institute against the upgraded post of Registrar in the scale of Rs.1500-2000. A perusal of the letter, therefore, shows that at the time of absorption of the petitioner with respondent No.1, the post, which was held by the petitioner had already been given parity with the post of the Registrar in the Central Universities. The age of retirement of the Registrar in the Central Universities was 60 years but the petitioner was retired on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31.1.1991. This action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31.1.1991 has now been challenged by filing the present petition.

(2.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of regulations framed by respondent No.1, all those employees who were in the University Grants Commission scale of pay would have retired on attaining the age of 60 years and the action of the respondent in superannuating him at the age of 58 years was clearly illegal. Some of the rules and regulations, which are applicable to the case of the petitioner and on which reliance has been placed by the parties read as under:

(3.) In terms of regulations 4(1), faculty members and other personnel of the Institute on University Grants Commission (UGC) grades of pay shall draw pay and allowances in such scales of pay as have been prescribed by the University Grants Commission and be subject to such conditions of the service as may be laid down from time to time by the University Grants Commission in the case of the corresponding categories of personnel in Central Universities. In terms of regulation 16, the age of retirement of all the employees of the institute shall be 58 years except in the case of the faculty members and other personnel on University Grants Commission grades of pay in whose case the age of retirement was prescribed as 60 years. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was on the University Grants Commission grade of pay and was drawing the same pay as was applicable to the post of corresponding status, namely, the Registrar in Central Universities he was entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years and could not be retired on his attaining the age of 58 years. The reliance is also placed upon the Resolution dated 21.3.1984 passed by the Executive Committee of respondent No.1. According to this resolution the existing scale for the post of the Registrar was upgraded from 1500-1800 to 1500-2000 to bring the same at par with the existing scale for the post of the Registrar in Central Universities and that the scale would be revised suitably as and when the scale for the post of Registrar in the Central Universities was changed to maintain the parity.