MOHAN LAL JANGID Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble NAOLEKAR, J. - This petition is being filed by the petitioner for enforcement of his right of contract of employment to serve the college till the age of sixty years and challenging his retirement at the age of 58 years.

(2.) BHAGWAN Das Todi College, Laxmangarh, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent College") is affiliated with the respondent No. 2 University of Rajasthan. The petitioner was born on 10th July, 1938. By order dated 17. 06. 1965 the petitioner after selection was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in the respondent College in the pay scale of 285-800 with D. A. An employment agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Managing Committee of the respondent College (respondent no. 4) on 28. 8. 1965. As per clause 3 of this agreement the age of superannuation was on attaining the age of sixty years. The petitioner was retired on attaining the age of 58 years by the respondent in exercise of the powers under Rule 45 (1) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1993" ). It is the case of the petitioner that the agreement of employment entered into between the parties has been superseded and was replaced by statutory agreement under Ordinance 67a and 68 of the University Ordinances after the college was affiliated to the Rajasthan University. The petitioner's service condition shall be governed by the Ordinance.

(3.) THE petitioner exercised the option and elected the Revised Pay Scale with effect from 1. 1. 1986. THE petitioner having exercised its option taking the revi- sed pay scale on the condition that his age of superannuation shall be governed by the grant-in-aid rules there is a voluntary change of contracts as regards the age of superannuation and the petitioner has opted for his retirement at the age of 58 years. THE petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same breath. Having got the benefit of the revised pay scale now it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that his retirement shall be on attaining the age of 60 years and not 58 years which has been specifically agreed to. THE judgment on which the strong reliance is placed is dated 22. 10. 1996 in G. N. Tandon vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (1 ). It is distinguishable on its own facts. THE Ordinance 67 of the Rajasthan University Ordinances was made applicable in the absence of the statu- tory contract having been mutually varied which is very clear when the court says:- ". . . . . . As observed earlier, in the instant case the University has not so far amended the Ordinance 67 nor the terms of the statutory contract have been mutually varied so the orders dated 4. 5. 1995 and 30. 9. 1995 become bad in law.