UDHAM SINGH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the subject of History on temporary basis with effect from 1.9.1986. He was regularized vide order dated 9.8.1990 with effect from 1.9.1986. Petitioner was superannuated vide Annexure A-1 dated 6.9.2005 with effect from 31.3.2005. Respondent No. 5-College was taken over by the State Government vide notification dated 9.11.2005. The case of the Petitioner, in a nutshell, is that as per Rule 12 of Appendix-A, i.e. rule relating to Teachers of Non-Government Affiliated Colleges, he was to be permitted to work till the age of 60 years. According to him, he has attained the age of 60 years on 15.1.2006. His salary with effect from 1.4.2005 to 9.11.2005 has not been paid by the College nor he has been released the gratuity as per Rule 12-A and he has also not been given the arrears of selection grade with effect from 27.7.1998 to 25.9.2002 despite order dated 25.9.2002. He has also not been given the benefit of leave encashment. Precise case of the Respondent-State is that it was for the management of Respondent No. 5- College to redress the grievance of the Petitioner and the State in no manner is responsible for the superannuation of the Petitioner as per Annexure A-1.

(2.) Mr. Rajnish Maniktala has vehemently argued that as per Ordinances of the Himachal Pradesh University, 1973, his client was to be permitted to work upto the age of 60 years. He then contended that his client is entitled to gratuity as per Rule 12-A and is also entitled to arrears of salary with effect from 1.4.2005 to 9.11.2005. He further contended that the action of the Respondents not to release arrears of selection grade by the Respondents with effect from 27.7.1998 to 25.9.2002 is bad in law. He also prayed for the release of benefit of leave encashment.

(3.) Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the College has only been taken over by the Government with effect from 9.11.2005 and the Respondent-State in no manner is responsible for the redressal of the grievance of the Petitioner. In other words, the grievance, if any, is against Respondent No. 5-College.