- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Petitioner Dhirendra Singh Rajvanshi has filed this writ petition challenging the communication of the order contained in the letter, dated 2-8-1994 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) saying that he would be retiring on 1-9-1994 and therefore, he should relinquish charge of the office on that date. The principal argument advanced was that under the relevant law and rules the petitioner was entitled to continue till 30-6-1995 because the academic session of the institute where the petitioner was working begins from 1st of July and ends on 30th of June of the next year.
(2.) PETITIONER is a Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department of Kanhaiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee, U. P. He joined the institution in the year 1973. Admittedly his date of birth is 1-9-1934 and therefore, if the benefit of continuing till the completion of the academic session is not available to the petitioner, he would have to retire on 1-9-1994. Reliance has been placed on Government order, dated 27-6-1988 and also on the letter of the Principal of the Institute, dated 20-2-1994. A representation of the petitioner filed on 18-7-1994 also indicates that the petitioner claimed his fight to continue till 30-6-1993. Repeated representations were also made but no reply was received by the petitioner. Forced under the circumstances the petitioner filed this writ petition on 24-8-1994, when a counter- affidavit was called from the opposite parties. On three occasions time was allowed to the learned counsel for the opposite parties to comply with the direction, dated 17-2-1995. Consequently, on 7-3- 1995 a stop order was passed granting two weeks and no more time to the Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit. Even the said opportunity went in vain. Hence this writ petition has to be heard on merits particularly keeping in view the fact that if the petitioner does not get his petition decided here and now his difficulties will increase.
(3.) IT may be stated here that on perusal of what is contained in the Government Order, dated 27-6-1988 the petitioner is entitled to continue till 30-6-1995 in the Kanhaiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee. IT may be again stated here that according to the averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition the said Government Order is still operative' and has not been superseded by any Government Order, Rule of direction. It was pointed out by Sri R. K. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel that he has sent repeated intimation but no one has turned up to file counter affidavit. However, on merits he argued that the benefit claimed by the petitioner cannot be extended to him because such an institution may not fall within the term of educational institution.;