KIRAT PAL SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for adjudication before this Court in the present Writ Petition is, as to whether an employee during the period of his suspension can exercise his option for the extended retirement age which is 60 years (instead of 58 years as it was earlier). The petitioner was a Principal in Rashtriya Inter College, Bhalswagaz, Haridwar. He was suspended pending inquiry by the Management Committee vide order dated 3.7.2002. Prior to it a Government Order was passed in the erstwhile State of U.P. in the year 1999 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition), whereby the teachers of grant-in-aid private schools were also given the benefit of exercising their option for opting for the retirement age of 60 years, within one years before the date of superannuation, but not later than 1st July of that year. There is no doubt about the validity of this G.O. dated 17.2.1999, as also, its applicability in the grant-in-aid schools, including the school in which the petitioner was working at the relevant time. The services of the petitioners were suspended vide order dated 3.7.2002. A series of litigations in this Court went on, which are not relevant for our purpose. What is relevant is that an order was passed superannuating the petitioner with effect from 30.6.2004. The case of the petitioner is that in compliance with the Government Order dated 17.2.1999, referred above, he had exercised option on 21.5.2003 for opting for the retirement age of 60 years and therefore, the case of the petitioner is that once he had exercised his option, his services were to continue till 30.6.2006 and he has wrongly been superannuated from service, two years earlier. The reason assigned by the State Authorities in their Counter Affidavit is that the option of the petitioner was not forwarded by the Management Committee and therefore, it could not be considered by the State Authorities and there was no anomaly on the part of the State in treating the retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.2004. The Management Committee on its part has stated in its counter affidavit that it was during the period of suspension that the petitioner had exercised his option for extension of his services, therefore, the Management Committee did not find it proper to forward the papers of the petitioner and in fact Management Committee came to the conclusion that he should not get the benefit of the G.O. dated 17.2.1999.

(2.) The Government Order dated 17.2.1999 has been perused. The order nowhere authorises the Management Committee to withhold the option of an employee, once it is so exercised. In fact, there is no role of Management Committee in the order dated 17.2.1999. The matter is absolutely between the teacher and the State. Therefore, withholding of the papers of the petitioner by the Management Committee is on the face of it unjustified.

(3.) Moreover, the logic assigned by the Management Committee for withholding the papers of the petitioner, that at the relevant time the petitioner was undergoing suspension, is not legally sustainable.