DR. SHAMBHU NATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners on 29.10.2010 in person and on being satisfied prima facie with the submission that the regulation, under which the age of the University teachers has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years, is binding on the University created by the State Act as has been held in a decision rendered by Patna High Court, an order was passed on 29.10.2010 in W.P. (S) No. 363 of 2010, whereby the University Authority was restrained from effecting any order relating to superannuation of Petitioner No. 2 on attaining the age of 62 years.

(2.) Thereafter, the matters were taken up for hearing and the hearing is going on since last 2 or 3 days and is likely to be continued for a couple of days but in the meantime, some of the Petitioners such as Petitioner No. 2 of W.P. (S) No. 286 of 2010, Petitioner No. 2 of W.P. (S) No. 5260 of 2010 and Petitioner No. 3 of W.P. (S) No. 4837 of 2010 would be retiring today on attaining the age of 62 years and, therefore, interlocutory applications have been filed for directing the University-Authorities not to superannuate the said Petitioners on attaining age of 62 years.

(3.) Mr. A. Allam and Mr. Srijit Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the University and State, submit that if this prayer is allowed, that would amount allowing of the prayer made in the writ applications itself and that the regulation is not mandatory in nature rather it is obligatory and hence, the State Government is not intending to accept the regulation which prescribes for extension of age from 62 to 65 years and that if the prayer is allowed, financial implication would involve as if the writ applications are dismissed, ultimately the University would be loser.