RAMESHWAR RAWAT Vs. CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 2(1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 30. 10. 2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 1348/2013.

(2.) The Writ Petition was directed against the order dated 26. 03. 2012 whereby the petitioner (appellant herein) was retired on attaining the age of 60 years.

(3.) Initially appointed as Senior Technical Assistant, a Class III post, was re-designated as Scientific Officer with effect from 04. 09. 1985 in grade Rs. 700-1300. The pay was subsequently revised to Rs. 2200-4000, which as per the petitioner was equivalent to the pay scale of a lecturer. The petitioner was later granted selection grade of Rs. 3700-5700, which as per him was equivalent to pay scale of Reader. The petitioner also had to his credit a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Degree awarded in the year 1983. Claiming that though the post of Senior Technical Assistant/Scientific Officer was not included in the Statute 31; however, being engaged in teaching the petitioner was entitled for enhanced age of retirement of 62 years determined for the teacher. Respondent University however, denied the contention. It states that though designated as Scientific Officer the petitioner remained Class-III employee. As the said re-designated post was never brought within the fold of Statute 31. It was urged that Clause 1 of Statute 31 prescribes condition of service for the employees of the University. That Clause 4. 3 prescribes age of retirement of the University Teachers and Class IV employee, envisaging therein that the age of retirement of the University teachers and Class-IV employees shall be sixty two years and for that of the other employees of the University shall be sixty years. Provided that the Executive council, in a special case, may grant to a University teacher who has reached the age of superannuation, reemployment for a period not exceeding three years, if the Council is satisfied that this is in the interest of the University. On these contentions, respondent University sought dismissal of the petition.