YUGUL KISHORE SHARMA Vs. STATER OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 6-3-2009 passed by the respondents retiring the petitioner at the age of 60 years on the grounds that the petitioner was working on the post of Junior Instructor in the Women Weaving Centre, Rewa, and thus, is termed to be a teacher. By an amendment made in the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Ardhvarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity), the amendment in the age of superannuation for the teachers serving in the Govt. institutions has been made enhancing such age to 62 years, by amending Fundamental Rule 56. It is contended that the petitioner though is appointed on the post of Instructor, but in fact is performing the teaching job, therefore, he could not have been superannuated at the age of 60 years. According to the petitioner, the amendment and the explanation attached to the amending Act specifically prescribes that those who are appointed on teaching post, have to retire on attaining the age of 62 years. It is contended that the similar issue was raised before this Court in some what similar circumstances by one Annapurna Prasad Shukla by filing Writ Petition No. 2289/2003 and the said writ petition has been allowed interpreting the provisions of the Amending Act and treating that the persons like Lab Technician and Assistant Librarian are to be treated as teachers within the definition of the amending provisions and, therefore, are entitled to continue on the post upto the age of 62 years. It is further contended that when the age of superannuation of the teachers was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years way back in the year 1987, the persons working on the post of instructor have approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by filing the writ petition which subsequently was transferred to the M.P. Administrative Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 747/1988, Ku. Chandra Kakker vs. State of M.P. and was allowed vide order dated 14-11-1991. In terms of the said provision and in terms of the explanation appended to the Act of 1998, it would be abundantly clear that Instructors appointed in the institute to impart training are also to be treated as Teacher and, therefore, they are to be granted the benefit of extension of services upto the age of 62 years. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned passed in respect of the petitioner is bad in law. This Court has entertained the writ petition granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 15-6-2009 and till the date of final hearing of the writ petition, in fact the petitioner has completed the age of 62 years. It is contended that since the petitioner has worked on the post, he would be entitled to the payment of salary of the post and the question involved in the present writ petition has become only an academic question which need not to be adjudicated in this petition as after the working, the petitioner would be entitled to the salary of the post.

(2.) However refuting such submissions made by the petitioner, a return has been filed. Placing full reliance in the amending provisions of the Act aforesaid as notified vide amending Act of 1998, it has been contended that the amendment would become applicable only in cases of those for whom specific provisions are made in the amending Act. It is contended that every Government teacher has been specifically mentioned in the amended provisions and for the purposes of interpretation of the word "Teacher" an explanation has been appended to the amending Act. Since the explanation is the part of the amending Act, unless a person is appointed in the educational institutions which are covered under the said explanation, he or she cannot be designated as Teacher. Therefore, it is contended that even if the petitioner has performed the duty as Instructor for more than 20 years, he would not be entitled to grant of benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation by the amending Act. However, it is contended that since the petitioner had worked on the post because of an interim stay granted by this Court, ultimately, on attaining the age of superannuation as per the amending Act, the petitioner stood retired on 30-6-2011. It is refuted by the respondents that since the petitioner was allowed to continue to work on the post, he would be entitled to the salary. It is contended that in terms of the provisions of the amending Act, since the petitioner is not one, who can be termed as teacher, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record minutely.