DELHI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the relief of continuation of petitioner No.1 as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No.4/M/s. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. till the age of 65 years. Petitioner No.1 's ordinary date of superannuation was 31.10.2012 and therefore petitioner No.1 superannuated on 31.10.2012 as he had reached 60 years being the age of superannuation. The petitioner No.1 claims continuation as the Managing Director of the respondent No.4-company placing reliance essentially on the circular dated 24.7.2007 of the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises and the related circulars. As per the petitioner No.1 this circular allows the petitioner No.1 to continue as the CMD of the respondent No.4 on the ground that the petitioner No.1 has contributed to turn around the loss making PSU/respondent No.4.

(2.) PETITIONER No.1 was first appointed as the Director (Finance) of the respondent No.4-company for five years or till his date of superannuation or till further orders by the letter dated 1.4.2005 of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. Before this period of five years or till further orders or till the date of superannuation came to an end the petitioner No.1 came to be appointed as the Managing Director of the respondent No.4 vide letter dated 1.2.2007 of the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises for a period of five years or till the date of his superannuation or till further orders. Appointment of the petitioner No.1 was w.e.f 1.5.2007 to 30.4.2012. Irrespective of the fact that the appointment was till further orders even if we take the appointment as a fixed period of five years, the period of five years expired. From 31.10.2012, the date of superannuation, the petitioner No.1 was continued as CMD of the respondent No.4 by the letter dated 19.9.2012 of the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. The issue is of continuation after 31.10.2012 at least for one year and preferably upto sixty five years in terms of the circular dated 24.7.2007.

(3.) THE only issue which is called for decision in the present case is that whether the board level appointees who turned around the sick company can take benefit of earlier appointment as another board level appointee at another post of the board of the concerned company prior to his being appointed in the present post of which continuation is sought. In the case of the petitioner No.1, we are talking of the petitioner No.1 's continuation as a CMD till the age of 65 years i.e continuation is sought as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and not of any other post. Once the claim is to continuation for 65 years is of a post, then, in my opinion the only interpretation which may be given to the circular dated 24.7.2007 is that the person who seeks continuation till the age of 65 years that continuation is at the post for which continuation is sought and qua that post/appointment it is to be seen that when he was appointed the undertaking in question was a loss making/sick undertaking and during the tenure of appointment (of the petitioner No.1), this loss making/sick undertaking has been converted into a profit making undertaking. In my opinion, no benefit can be given of prior service in another post with the respondent No.4 of the petitioner No. 1 inasmuch as the continuation is sought upto 65 years not at the earlier post but at the present post.