CHARANJIT SINGH NISCHAL Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as a TGT on 20.8.1953, In view of coming into force Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the services of the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Education was the subject governed under the aegis of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 6.4.1967. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner was promoted to the post of School Inspector on 12.12.1968. In 1970 all Middle and Higher Secondary Schools under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were transferred to the Delhi Administration. However, petitioner continued with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and performed his duties as Inspector of Schools. Petitioner was retired on 23.8.1979 after completing the age of 58 years. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been retired at the age of 58 years as the petitioner's age of retirement was 60 years. Though the petitioner was promoted as School Inspector he was teacher for the purposes of retirement of age. My attention has been drawn to Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of transfer of building, staff, accessories of the Higher Secondary Schools and Middle Schools of Delhi Municipal Corporation to the Delhi Administration. The same is as under:

(2.) The Government of India accorded its approval vide letter dated 18.1.1973, which is at page 44 of the paper book. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its Resolution No. 666 on 6.11.78 clarified that the service condition of teachers, officers and other employees transferred to the Delhi Administration along with school w.e.f. 1.7.1970 be accorded to the extent that the age limit for retirement of officers and other employees will be 58 years and in case of teachers and class IV servants it will be 60 years.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was not a teacher as he was promoted as a School Inspector, therefore, he could not have been granted the superannuation at the age 60 years and the Municipal Corporation has rightly superannuated him when he attained the age of 58 years. Another argument put forth by the Counsel for the respondent is that the accord was granted to the employees who were absorbed by the Delhi Administration subject to the observance of rules and instructions etc. laid down in this behalf by the Government of India from time to time.