DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. SURAJMAL MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 30.10.2013 by which the trial court has only partially decreed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, granting the appellant/plaintiff leave encashment amount for 137 days, but has dismissed the suit whereby the appellant/plaintiff claimed the relief of financial benefits by taking the appellant/plaintiff to have retired at the age of 62 years and not at 60 years as was taken and done by the respondent/defendant/employer.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff was originally appointed to Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Pharmacy and Technology (hereinafter "M.S.I.P&T") by the respondent/defendant. M.S.I.P&T was a polytechnic institution running diploma courses. The diploma courses could not continue and therefore the respondent/defendant started a B.Tech. Degree course in the year 2001 and set up Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology (hereinafter M.S.I.T). BM.S.I.P&T and M.S.I.T, are separate educational institutions. Both, M.S.I.P&T and M.S.I.T, are private educational institutions and they do not receive any funding from the government. The appellant/plaintiff was appointed as a Principal in M.S.I.P&T, and when this institute stopped functioning as regards diploma courses, the appellant/plaintiff was appointed by the respondent/defendant as a Director in M.S.I.T. However, for being appointed as a Director of M.S.I.T as per the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter AICTE) Rules and Regulations, a person had to have a qualification of Ph.D. but the appellant/plaintiff did not have this qualification. Accordingly, the respondent/defendant was informed by the AICTE vide its Letter dated 30.12.2005 that the appellant/plaintiff cannot be appointed or allowed to continue on the post of the Director of M.S.I.T. From 30.12.2005 till the year 2006, the respondent/ defendant tried its best to convince AICTE to allow the appellant/plaintiff to continue as the Director of the M.S.I.T., however the AICTE ultimately refused and in fact there was an impending threat of de-recognition of the M.S.I.T institute on account of the appellant/plaintiff continuing as the Director of M.S.I.T, and therefore, the respondent/defendant issued the Letter of Termination dated 30.03.2006 to the appellant/plaintiff. In this letter, the appellant/plaintiff besides being informed of his termination from the post of Director of M.S.I.T, was also informed that though the services were terminated with immediate effect i.e. 30.03.2006, the appellant/plaintiff will continue to get remuneration till the date of his retirement of 60 years i.e. till 31.01.2007. The appellant/plaintiff was thereafter offered the post of Reader by the respondent vide Letter dated 03.11.2006/Ex.PW1/8 but this appointment was refused by the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff claims to have refused this post because the respondent/defendant had issued the appellant/plaintiff memorandums with respect to financial mismanagement when the appellant/plaintiff was working as Principal of M.S.I.P&T. The appellant/plaintiff, therefore, filed the subject suit pleading that as a Director he would have continued in the post till the age of 62 years, and therefore the appellant/plaintiff be granted benefit of the financial package till the age of 62 years and not up to 60 years, as was written in the Termination of Service Letter dated 30.03.2006/Ex.PW1/4.

(3.) The main defence of the respondent/defendant was that the appellant/plaintiff was ineligible for being appointed as a Director of the respondent/defendant/M.S.I.T, as the appellant/plaintiff lacked the qualification of Ph.D., hence the appellant/plaintiff cannot get benefit of the financial package for the post of Director which was up to the age of 62 years. Further, the appellant/plaintiff otherwise also cannot get financial package for the post of a Reader of M.S.I.T till the age of 62 years inasmuch as the offer given by the respondent/defendant for appointment of the appellant/plaintiff as a Reader in M.S.I.T vide Ex. PW1/8 dated 03.11.2006 but this was rejected by the appellant/plaintiff vide his letter dated 15.11.2006/Ex.PW1/19.