BIMAL KUMAR CHANDA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AL Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Chakraborty, learned State counsel, appearing for the State- respondents.

(2.) This is the third round of litigation launched by the petitioner pertaining to his extension of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years for rendering his service as Reader in BB Evening College, Agartala. In the first instance, the petitioner approached this Court through Civil Rule No. 239 of 1995 alleging that his prayer for extension of his age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was illegally and arbitrarily refused by the authority. His case is that as per University Grants Commission (for short, UGC) Guideline a teacher is entitled to for 2 years extension from his original date of superannuation. In other words, an extension is generally allowed for 2 years from 58 years, being the age of superannuation upto the age of 60 years. The petitioner's date of superannuation was on 30.4.1994. Prior to his retirement, the petitioner applied on 15.3.1994 for his extension. But his application was not attended to within the period before his retirement for the reason best known to the authority, and it was on 2.6.1994, he was informed that his prayer for extension was rejected on the ground that at the time of consideration of his case for extension, there was no vigilance clearance in his favour. On inspection of material available on record, it is seen that the UGC in its guideline has prescribed 3 conditions essential for consideration of extension of services of the teachers after superannuation which may be noticed as under:

(3.) This Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fore noted UGC Guideline, rejected the prayer of the petitioner on 14th August, 1996, holding that since the petitioner's case for extension could not be considered by the authority due to the absence of vigilance clearance which was, in the opinion of the Court, a very fatal to the petitioner's case, though he satisfied other two criteria i.e. medical fitness certificate and recommendation of the Principal of the college in which the teacher is working, there was not illegality in not considering the petitioner's case as extension of service was not automatic. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the petitioner carried the matter in his second leg of litigation to the writ appellate Court in Writ Appeal No. 80 of 1996 claiming enhancement of superannuation age and the Hon'ble Division Bench by its order dated 20.12.1996 dismissed the appeal without interfering with the findings of the learned Single Judge.