LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-51

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. B K RAGHUNATHAN

Decided On February 24, 2014
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
B K Raghunathan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 26.03.2007, passed by Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Service Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Application No.4 of 1998 preferred by the respondent No.1 herein, whereby, the Tribunal held that the respondent No.1 was entitled to continue in service of respondent No.3 institute till he completed age of 60 years. It was also held that the respondent No.1 was entitled to the retirement benefits considering the above age.

(2.) It appears that the Tribunal gave the above benefits to the respondent No.1 on the basis of the resolution dated 26.08.1989 and 27.10.1989 and the earlier order of the Tribunal passed in Application No.9 of 1995.

(3.) The case put up by the State is that the respondent No.1 was serving at Birla Institute of Technology and Science at Pilani in the State of Rajasthan from 26.08.1963. He served there till he was appointed as Professor in respondent No.3 College on 06.09.1985. As averred in the petition, the Government introduced pension scheme for teaching and non teaching staff of non Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics and all the employees serving in the institutions named in the resolution dated 17.12.1987 stood governed by the said scheme for pension if in service on the date of resolution. It is further averred that the services rendered by an employee in other institutions not covered by the resolution dated 17.12.1987 are not to be considered for the purpose of pensions. It is the case of the State Government that vide resolution dated 27.10.1989, it was decided that the retirement age of the teaching staff of non Government engineering colleges shall be 58 years, however, for those employees appointed prior to 01.10.1984, retirement age for them would be 60 years. The appointment of the respondent was since not prior to 01.10.1984 in the institution covered by the resolution, the respondent was not entitled to retirement age of 60 years.