M.KATJU AND RAKESH TIWARI, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for (he parties.
(2.) THE controversy in this case is whether the retirement age of an employee of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur is 60 years or 62 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Yatindra has invited our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54346 of 2000, Raja Ram Verma v. Union of India, decided on 10.7.2002, vide Annexure -13 to the writ petition. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decision in Raja Ram Verma's case (supra), and we respectfully disagree, with thesame. Section 13(2) of the Indian Institute of Technology Act, 1961, states 'Subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes, all appointments to posts under the Institute shall ordinarily be made on probation for a period of one year after which period the appointee, if confirmed, shall continue to hold his office subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, till the end of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.'
(3.) THE Division Bench in Raja Ram Verma's case (supra), held that the age of retirement of an employee of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, has been increased to 62 years in view of certain Government letter dated 31.8.1998, Annexure -2 to the writ petition and also letter dated 30.3.1999 Annexure -5 to the writ petition. In our opinion, the aforesaid letters do not amount to statutory provisions nor are they pieces of delegated legislation.;