CHANDRA KUMAR TRIPATHY Vs. VINOBA BHAVE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly challenging the order passed by th Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, whereby, the petitioner has been denied salary for the period running from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was serving with the Government Sanskrit College, initially in the State of Bihar and upon bifurcation in the State of Jharkhand. As per the respondents, it was in dispute whether the petitioner should be treated as government employee or an employee of the University or in the University services. This clarification is required, as per the respondents, because of the fact that the State Government employees are to retire upon reaching the age of 58 years whereas the employees, who are in the University services, are going to retire upon reaching the age of 60 years.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation nor any fraud has been played by him and with all full knowledge of the respondents, the petitioner has worked as a Lecturer and was also made In -charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College for the two years, in question, i.e. after 58 years till he reached the age of 60 years i.e. up to 31st August, 2003. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact two classes, created for the same work of Lecturer, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, namely, a class of Lecturers who are working in Government College and another class of Lecturers, who are working in a non -governmental college. For first type of class, the age of retirement will be 58 years whereas for another class, the age of retirement will be 60 years. In fact, all the Lecturers are doing the same job in the college and, thus, there cannot be a different age of retirement. There is no reasonable nexus with the object, sought to be achieved. Like persons must be treated alike. The discrimination made by the respondents tantamounts to violation of the right of equality of the petitioner, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.