CHANDRA MOHAN VARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Chandra Mohan Varma
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. -
(1.)A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed, by its judgment dated 2 February 2018, a Writ Petition instituted by the appellant
under Article 226 of the Constitution. By his petition, the appellant sought a
mandamus for his continuance in service as Professor and Head of the
Department of Cardiology of the LPS Institute of Cardiology in GSVM Medical
College, Kanpur until he attained the age of 65. He claimed this relief on the
basis of a notification dated 6 February 2015 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh
extending the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. The appellant had before the
issuance of the above government notification attained the age of superannuation
of 60 years on 13 August 2014. But, in terms of a Government decision "GO" dated 19
November 2012, he had been granted a 'session benefit' of an extension of
service up to 30 June 2015. Based on this extension, the appellant's case is that
he is entitled to the extension in the age of retirement which has been brought
about by the notification dated 6 February 2015. This claim has been repelled by
the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court which is questioned in
(2.)On 1 April 1992, the UP Fundamental Rules "Fundamental Rules" were notified under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act 1935. Rule 56 provides that:
"Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided ..."
(3.)On 21 December 1990, the Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges Teachers, Service Rules 1990 "the Rules of 1990" were notified by the Governor in exercise of
powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 9
prescribed a maximum age for recruitment in medical colleges, by direct
recruitment. For Professors, it was 45 years. Among other things, the Rules made
a provision for constitution of cadres in Part II, recruitment in Part III,
quantifications for appointment in Part IV, procedure for recruitment in Part V and
provisions for pay related matters in Part VII. The Rules did not prescribe the age
of retirement. But, Rule 26 contained the following stipulation:
"26. Regulation of other matters. In regard to the matters not specifically provided in these rules or in special orders, persons appointed to the service shall be governed by the rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to Government servants in connection with the affairs of the State."
By virtue of Rule 26, the age of retirement of professors in medical colleges was governed by Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules which stipulated it as 60 years.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.