KRISHNA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. The petition preferred by this appellant was for increasing the age of retirement praying therein that instead of 60 years, it should be 62 years as per the amendment in the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. This amendment has been carried out in the year 2005. It further appears that this provision has been further amended in the year 2012 and instead of 62 years for teaching staffs, the age of retirement has been enhanced upto 65 years, whereas for the non -teaching staffs, the age of retirement has been maintained as 60 years.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant (original petitioner) vehemently submitted that the appellant was working as Assistant Librarian against the pay scale equivalent to that of the Lecturer and, therefore, her age of retirement should be 62 years. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the pay scale of this appellant is that of the Lecturer. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Looking to Section 67 of the Act of 2000, which is amended in the year 2005, the date of retirement of teachers of University or the Colleges and those of officers declared equivalent to them by the statute of the University with effect from the date of notification of the Act of 2000, in the official gazette, shall be the date on which such officer or the teaching staffs attaining the age of 62 years. This appellant, who was an Assistant Librarian in the pay scale of Lecturer, should have been continued in the services as per amended Section 67 of the Act of 2000 upto the age of 62 years and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Section 2(am) of the Act of 2000 and submitted that "those officers declared equivalent to them". The words which are used in Section 67(a) of the Act of 2000, as per amendment in the year 2005, should be read with Section 2(am) of the Act of 2000 and as per these provisions, the pay scale of this appellant is equivalent to the pay scale of Lecturer and hence, the age of retirement should be 62 years. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 988 of 2012 dated 30th April, 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the reasons and facts: - -