SUDIPTA DHAR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in St. Margaret 's Higher Secondary School, Shillong on being appointed in the year 1986. Her date of birth as recorded is 01.03.1959 and in due course of service, would have retired on 01.03.2019, if 60 years was the retirement age. The grievance as portrayed in the writ petition is that vide letter dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-III), the petitioner was informed by the respondents (Management) that she was to retire on 01.03.2017 on attaining 58 years of age. The petitioner 's case is that as the School is governed by the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965, (hereinafter called the Rules of 1965) the same which has been made applicable to the State of Meghalaya, which prescribes the age of superannuation at 60 years, the letter dated 10.02.2017 which retired her w.e.f. 01.03.2017 at the age of 58 years is illegal and arbitrary, and as such the same is assailed by way of this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the School i.e. St. Margaret 's Higher Secondary School, Shillong is an Aided School which was receiving Grant in Aid from the Government of Meghalaya, and that the age of superannuation as provided in Rule 11 of the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965 of teachers who are serving in Aided Government Schools is 60 years. He submits that the petitioner was appointed in the said School which was governed by the aforementioned Rules and as such in normal course would have retired on attainment of 60 years of age. However, he submits that the School in a most arbitrary manner by the impugned letter dated 10.02.2017 had informed the petitioner that she had to retire at the age of 58 years which compelled her to approach this Court.

(3.) He further submits that though the Respondent school had relinquished the Grant in Aid as provided by the Government w.e.f. 01.03.2017 onwards, and even though thereafter in effect, the School became a private un-aided minority educational institution, he contends that the petitioner has acquired a vested right to continue in service till the age of 60 years, as provided in the Rules of 1965, in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed during the time when the School was an Aided School and that the impugned letter dated 10.02.2017 was issued when the School was still then an Aided School. As such, he submits that the action of the Respondents School, is arbitrary and illegal and the petitioner was entitled to be in service till she attained the age of 60 years. He further submits that at the time of institution of the writ petition, the writ petitioner was still in service but now she has since completed 60 years of age on 01.03.2019. Learned counsel lastly submits that though there is no question of her being taken back in service, she should however be compensated by directing the respondents to pay the full salary for the 2 yearsof service that she has lost. Learned counsel to support his arguments on the vested right to continue has placed reliance on the case of Miss Raj Soni v. Air Officer Incharge Administration and anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1305.