R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H. N. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Standing counsel along with Sri Raj Kumar learned Standing counsel. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 28th/29th of March, 1990 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. Further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner from the post of Head Master of before 30th June, 1991 and to pay him salary and other emoluments upto 30th June, 1991.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Mohaila Chaudhriana, Saharanpur in the year 1953 and later on was promoted as Head Master in the same school on 1.1.1963. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 1.7.1930 and after completing sixty years of age petitioner was retired by the order dated 1.7.1990, which was challenged by way of this writ petition. This court by the order dated 30.5.1990 indicated that until further orders of this Court, operation of the order dated 28/29.3.90 is stayed. According to the petitioner passing order of superannuation w.e.f. 30th June, 1991 is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as he was to attend 60 years on 31st July, 1990, therefore, he will continue upto 30th June, 1991 that is till the completing of the next academic session in view of the Rule 29 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1931, which reads as below "Rule 29- Age of Superannuation: - Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years: Provided that a teacher Who retires during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the academic sessions that is, June 30 and such period of service will be deemed as extended period of employment."
(3.) According to the Standing counsel keeping in view the date of birth entered into in the service book as 1.7.30 the petitioner had completed 60 years on 30th June, 1990, therefore, he was rightly retired w.e.f. 30th June, 1990 and the benefit of Rule 29 mentioned as above cannot be given to the petitioner and by retiring a person after completing the age of superannuation could never be said to be violating provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution According to the respondents the petitioner has no right to continue in service as the date of birth entered into the service book was duly verified by the competent authority and is taken correct date of birth of the petitioner. According to the respondents the impugned order is not to be interfered with.;