YUGESHWAR SINGH S/O LATE CHULI SINGH Vs. B R A BIHAR UNIVERSITY THROUGH THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY MUZAFFARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner of this writ application is aggrieved by a notification of the University, contained in Memo No. B/1639 dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure-3), by which his date of superannuation had been notified as 01.03.2008. He has prayed for quashing of the same and for a direction to the University authorities to reinstate him as a class-IV employee of S.R.K.G. College, Sitamarhi (in short "the College") and allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lab Boy in the Department of Chemistry on 01.02.1964 by the Management of the College. Subsequently while he was in service of the College, he appeared and passed his matriculation examination in March, 1972 and was issued marks-sheet (Annexure-1). In the marks-sheet, his date of birth was shown as 02.07.1952. Thereafter, in 1975 the College was taken-over by the University as a constituent college and consequently the services of the petitioner and others were absorbed under the University. Petitioner was made permanent and, as per the certificate of the Principal, vide Annexure-2, was placed in the scale of Rs. 940-1500 with effect from 01.01.1986. Petitioner has since continued in the service of the University to the full satisfaction of all concerned without any complaint against him. All of a sudden, the University issued the impugned Notification, by which the dates of superannuation of petitioner and others were notified. Petitioner's date of superannuation was mentioned as 01.03.2008. Thus, by virtue of this Notification, petitioner stood retired. As per his date of birth mentioned in the matriculation marks-sheet, at that point of time petitioner's age was less than 56 years. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as per Section 67 (a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as "Universities Act"), he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 62 years. Hence, as per law, he had 6 years more of service left, which the University has illegally denied to him. Therefore, prayer is for quashing of the said impugned Notification and for his reinstatement in the service.

(2.) Learned Counselfor the petitioner submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner, as mentioned in his matriculation marks-sheet, was never disputed or questioned by the respondents at any point of time. The respondents have also never disputed his date of appointment in the College while the College was an affiliated college of the University. He was absorbed in the University service, after the College became its constituent unit, taking into account his appointment in the College with effect from 01.02.1964. Hence, the University had to allow him to continue in service till he attained the age of 62 years, in terms of Section 67(a) of the Universities Act. He submitted that the said Section 67 (a) starts with a non-obstante clause and hence has an overriding effect over any other Act, Rules, Statutes, Regulation or Ordinance. As such, the respondents were not legally justified in making the petitioner superannuate with effect from 01.03.2008. He submitted that, at the time of appointment by the Management, petitioner was admittedly about 12 years of age, but at that time no minimum age was prescribed for appointment in a privately managed college. Therefore, the respondents accepted his appointment as valid and absorbed him in regular service of the University.

(3.) Respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the case. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner was made to superannuate with effect from 01.03.2008 by the impugned Notification (Annexure-3), as per decision of this Court and the Government Circular vide letter no.15/14/1-14-99-1961 dated 12.11.1999, upon completion of 44 years of service. It is stated that, for such decision, University has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in : 2006 (1) PLJR 410 and a judgment reported in 1983 LIC 162. It is also stated that a large number of employees of the University were made to superannuate on completion of 44 years of service in similar circumstances, one of such was one Ganesh Sinha. He moved this Court challenging his superannuation on completion of 44 years of service through CWJC No. 11890 of 2005, which was heard and dismissed by this Court by order dated 22.04.2009. Another employee one Bhupal Prasad Singh, who was also made to superannuate on completion of 44 years of service by the University in identical circumstances, also moved this Court whose writ application was also dismissed. While dismissing the writ applications, this Court relied upon the said Full Bench judgment of this Court. Hence, it was submitted by Learned Counselfor the University that there being no apparent distinguishing feature in the case of said Ganesh Sinha and Bhupal Prasad Singh vis--vis the present petitioner, this Court should follow the judicial precedent in the case of this petitioner also.