ARUN KUMAR SINHA, S/O LATE LAXMI NARAYAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT O
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-5-40
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on May 14,2018

Arun Kumar Sinha, S/O Late Laxmi Narayan Prasad Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary, Department O Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.)In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for regularization of services on the post of Professor of Skin, V.S. and Leprosy Department of RIMS for the period 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2009 date of attaining the age of 62 years and for a direction upon the respondents for payment of amounts for which the petitioner is legally entitled on and from 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2009 alongwith interest. The petitioner has further prayed for direction imposing heavy cost upon the respondents for not allowing to continue on his post inspite of the fact that the period of superannuation was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years for the Professors of RIMS by a notification adopted by the Governing Body of the RIMS and which has come into effect i.e. on 31.12.2006 the date on which, he was in service.
(2.)Sans of unnecessary details, the facts as averred in the writ application in a nutshell is that the petitioner was working as the professor-cum-Head of the Department Skin, V.D. and Leprosy Department of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences in short referred to as RIMS, continued on the post till attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2007. In the meantime, the age of retirement of teachers has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years but the enhancement of the age was not adopted by the Governing Body of the RIMS, therefore, the petitioner handed over the charge to his successor on 05.06.2007. The petitioner submitted representation before the respondent authority to allow him on his post because of the age of retirement enhanced from 60 to 62 years but the said representation did not evoke any response from the respondents. Left with no other alternative remedy, the petitioner was constrained to work under a Contract/agreement at the RIMS for a period of one year as stipulated in the appointment letter dated 21.01.2008 and the petitioner's joining was accepted and he was allowed as Sr. Professor of the Skin, V.D. and Leprosy Department at RIMS. While continuing as such, a notification dated 09.04.2008, whereby the Governing Body of RIMS had resolved that the age of the professors shall be enhanced for retirement from 60 years to 62 years but the said resolution was given retrospective effect i.e. 31.12006 on which date, the petitioner was working as a Professor at RIMS and in view of the said notification, the petitioner again made representation before the competent authorities for continuing at his original post till 31.03.2009, the date of which, he would attain the age of superannuation of 62 years but due to adamantine attitude of respondent no.2, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. It has further been averred that the petitioner after coming into force of the resolution dated 09.04.2008, is entitled for regularization of his services from 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2009 on which the date, he would complete 62 years. It has further been averred that the petitioner was entitled for enhancement of his post retirement and pensionary benefits, if his services are counted as regular till 31.03.2009. Being aggrieved by the nonredressal of grievance, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully submitted that in view of the resolution dated 09.04.2008 of the Governing Body of the RIMS, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to continue till attaining the age of 62 years i.e. 31.02009. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of aforesaid resolution, the petitioner was entitled for regularisation in services on and from 01.04.2007 to 31.02009 and inaction on the part of respondents in not extending the same benefits, amounts to colourable exercise of power. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for cost and litigation charges alongwith interest for the harassment by the respondents.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.