LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-18

ABHIRAN SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On March 07, 2019
Abhiran Singh Chauhan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 and as well as supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution are invoked questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 01.09.2004 as contained in Annexure P-1 whereby the District Education Officer Bhind has informed the petitioner, retired Principal of Aided Non-Government Parshuram, High School, Birkhadi (Chachayi) Ron, District Bhind that the period of services rendered from 1-1-5-99 to 30-04-2001, after attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years, is not found admissible for release of grant-in-aid for payment of salary for this period.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while entering in service of aforesaid aided non-government institution imparting school education, the petitioner entered into an agreement prescribed in Form-1 as per Regulation 71 of the M.P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965 which inter alia provides in Clause-4 as follows:-

(3.) Relying upon the aforesaid it is submitted that the petitioner in normal course would have continued till the age of 62 years extend able to 65 years with permission of Chairman of the Managing Committee of Society running the school. It is submitted that petitioner attained the age of superannuation of 62 years on 30-04- 1999 (end of the academic year in which petitioner attained the age of 62 years) however, the Managing Committee of Society in it's general body meeting held on 06-09-1998, recommended to extend the services of petitioner by 2 years till 30-04-2001. The said resolution of the Board was forwarded by the DEO, Bhind to the Chairman of the Board of Secondary Education vide Annexure P-4 dated 20.10.1999. The Secretary of M.P. Board of Secondary Education vide Annexure P-5 communicated the concurrence for extension of service till the age of 64 years. On the basis of aforesaid concurrence, the petitioner was discharged his duty as a Principal even after attaining the age of 62 years and ultimately retired on 30- 4-2001.