JAGDEV KATOCH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Goswami Ganesh Dutt Educational Society, Baijnath. This College has now been taken over by the State Government on 4.1.2007. He attained the age of 60 years on 12.8.2004. He made a representation to the authorities that he may be permitted to continue to discharge his duties upto 31.3.2005 when the academic session ended. The plea of the petitioner was not considered by the authorities and he was superannuated on 31.8.2004. He made a representation to the authorities concerned through proper channel on 26.2.2005. In his representation, he had mentioned about the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Sh. O.P. Kaushal. He also served a legal notice upon the Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Director Education on 8.8.2005 through his Advocate. He reiterated the contents of the legal notice in another representation made on 14th October, 2005 addressed to the Principal of the College relying upon the University Statutes and Ordinances. The petitioner has also relied upon communication dated 4th June, 1994 sent by the Director Education to the Principal, DAVC, Kangra under the subject Gratuity Position of Private Colleges -.

(2.) MR . Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate had strenuously argued that as per rule 12 of Appendix -A i.e. Rule Relating to the Teachers of Non -Government Affiliated College, his client was to be permitted to continue in service till the end of the semester or the academic sessions even though his client had attained the age of 60 years on 12.8.2004. He also contended that his client is entitled to gratuity under rule 12 -A of the Appendix -A framed by the respondent -University. He further contended that his client is entitled to leave encashment.

(3.) MR . J.L. Bardwaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 had argued that the petitioner was to retire immediately after attaining the age of 60 years and he had reiterated the stand taken in the reply filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 to the writ petition.