ANIL KUMAR SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-16
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 04,2018

Anil Kumar Saikia Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SUMAN SHYAM,J. - (1.) Heard Mr.D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General Assam assisted by Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel has appeared for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 whereas Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, University Grants Commission (UGC) has appeared for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9.
(2.) The communication dated 26.09.2012 notifying the decision of the State Cabinet raising the age of superannuation of the Professors in all the Educational Institutions in the State of Assam from 60 years to 65 years as well as the notification dated 19.12.2012 issued by the Dibrugarh University, implementing the Cabinet decision, are under challenge in the present writ proceeding.
(3.) The brief facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer under the Dibrugarh University in the department of Pharmaceutical Science, on 11.03.1985 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Reader on 19.03.2001. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2011 from which post, he had retired with effect from 31.01.2014 on attaining the age of 60 years. The grievance of the writ petitioner in this.writ petition are twofold, firstly, that the decision of the State Cabinet enhancing the age of retirement only in case of "Professors" to the exclusion of other grades of teachers including the Associate Professors serving in the same institution was discriminatory and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, having regard to the age of the petitioner recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, his date of superannuation ought to have been 28.02.2014 and not 31.01.2014.;


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