K.C.Bhargava - (1.) A short question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, whose date of brith is 1-7-1932, will attain the age of superannuation on 30-6-1990 or 1-7-1990. The petitoner in the present case was working as a teacher in history in a Government Inter College, Faizabad. Her date of brith, according to High School Certificate, was 1-7-1932, vide Annexure-1. She was initially appointed as Assistant Mistress at Government Junior Training College for Women at Jhansi. Lastly, she was transferred to Government Girls Inter College, Faizabad. The age of superannuation of teachers in a Government College is- 58 years. According to the petition she would attain the age of superannuation on 1-7-1990, that is, the date on which she completes 58 years. It is further alleged that if the date of superannuation of a teacher does not fail on 30th June, the teacher shall continue in service till the next Academic Session and she will be treated as on re-employment provided she fulfils certain conditions. The Government order on this behalf is contained in Annexure 2 According to the petitioner she is mentally and bodily fit to discharge her functions, and her date of superannuation falls on 1-7-1990, that is, after 30th June. Therefore, she will attain the age of superannuation after 30th June and she will be entitled to re-employment upto next Academic Session.
(2.) OPPOSITE party no. 3 has passed an order stating the date of superannuation of the petitioner as 30-6-1990. It is contained in Annexure-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the above order is without jurisdiction and no such order could have been issued as the appointing authority of the petitioner is opposite party no. 2. The writ petition is opposed. As the question involved in the writ petiton was a very short question, therefore, the learned Standing Counsel agreed to argue the petition on merits without filing a counter affidavit.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-7-1932 and she will attain the age of superannuation on 1-7-1990, and under the Government Order, copy of which is Annexure-2, she will be deemed to have been re-employed upto 30-6-1991. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is devoid of merit. No doubt vide Annexure 2 it is clear that if a teacher is reteiring after 30th June then he or she would be deemed to have been re-employed upto the end of next Academic Session, and he or she will retire on 30th June provided he or she is mentally fit and the work of the teacher was satisfactory throughout his or her career. This Government Order has no application in the present case because the date of superannuation of the petitioner is 30-6-1990 and not 1-7-1990 as alleged by the petitioner. The date of birth, in the present case, is admitted by the petitioner and is also evidenced by High School Certificate, vide Annexure-1, as 1-7-1932. The date on which the petitioner was born will not be excluded for counting the date of superannuation. This date is to be counted for the period of service and the petitioner will complete 58 years of age on 30-6-1990.;