RAMA PRASAD GHILDYAL PAHARI Vs. HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 16 April 1968, by which he dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant was the Examination Registrar (Pareeksha Yojak) of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (hereinafter called the sammelan), an institution having for its object propagation of Hindi in the country. Previously, the sammelan was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. In 1961 the Parliament enacted the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the sammelan was declared an institution of national importance and incorporated, and provisions were made for its administration. The appellant was appointed as Registrar by means of a resolution dated 23 September 1951, of the executive committee of the sammelan. The resolution stated that the appointment was to remain temporary till 31 December 1951, and would be made permanent thereafter if the work of the appellant was found satisfactory. It is not in dispute that the appellant held his office on a permanent basis at the relevant time. On 10 April 1867, the secretary of the governing body of the sammelan sent to the appellant a letter informing him that as he had reached the age of 55 years on 28 January 1967, his term of office had come to an end and that the governing body of the sammelan was of opinion that it was not necessary to extend it. It was also stated in the letter that the service of the appellant would terminate with effect from 15 May 1967, and that he could avail of his earned leave, if he so wished, during the interval. The appellant filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal on 9 May 1967 and prayed that the " order " of the secretary of the governing body be quashed and a direction be issued to the sammelan, its governing body and the secretary, all of whom were impleaded as parties, not to interfere with the petitioner functioning as the Registrar of the sammelan on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the governing body communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 17 April 1967.

(3.) THE reliefs claimed by the appellant in his petition were sought on the ground that the age of superannuation was 60 years and the sammelan was, therefore, not entitled to terminate his service earlier. Admittedly, there was no rule fixing the age of superannuation for persons in the service of the sammelan, and the case of the appellant rested on the allegation that in reply to a letter dated 26 September 1951, addressed by him to the then examination secretary of the sammelan the latter wrote to him on 30 September 1951, that the superannuation of the petitioner in the service of the sammelan would be at the age of 60 years with a further chance for a period of two years if the petitioner is mentally and physically fit. Relying on Section 5 (d) of the Act, the appellant stated in the petition that even after the enforcement of the Act the tenure and the terms of the petitioner's service continued to be the same as before it and the order retiring him from service before he reached the age of 60 years was totally without jurisdiction and in contravention of the aforesaid provision.