JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FOR the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts given in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Slate of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2141 of 1991 are taken into consideration:

(3.) THE petitioner entered the service of the respondent Maharishi Dayanand College, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the College' hereinafter) way back in the year 1969. While the petitioner was in service an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent College. A copy of the agreement has been placed on the record as Annex. 1. It is alleged that as per para 10 of the agreement it was agreed between the petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents that the age of superannuation of the petitioner will be 60 years and his actual retirement shall be on 30th day of June following attaining age of 60 years. It is alleged that the U.G.C. Pay Scales were made applicable from the year 1973 and the petitioner made an application on 5.6.1990 whereby he requested the Management of the respondent College to fix his pay in the U.G.C. Pay Scales and to pay him arrears in pursuance of the aforesaid fixation. Since the respondent College was not responding to his request, therefore, he made an application to the respondent No. 4 the Director, College Education requesting that the respondent College may be directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the U.G.C. Pay Scales and to pay the same to the petitioner. It is alleged that on account of this the Management has not taken it kindly and has informed the petitioner that he will be retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years in terms of Rule 3 (16) of the Grant -in -Aid Rules, 1963 i.e. 30.6.1990. The retirement was effected on 30.6.1990. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 30.6.1990 before the respondent No. 4 the Director, College Education. The Director, College Education informed the petitioner that the appeal is only maintainable against the punishment imposed on the employee and not against such retirement. Then, the petitioner also made a representation by way of appeal and he was informed that no such appeal lies against such retirement.