- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Six petitioners working as teachers at Obera Inter College, Obera, District Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as 'college" in short) have approached this Court against the respondents complaining against their action of retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years, through, as contended by the petitioners, they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years. Consequently, notice dated 12-1-2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy General Manager, U. P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "uprvunl" in short), working as Manager of the College informing the petitioners that they would retire on 30-6-2004 on attaining the age of 58 years has been challenged in this petition.
(2.) THE facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition are that the College was established as a Government school by Irrigation Department of the State Government, but after establishment of THErmal Generation Units at Obera, the aforesaid institution was taken over by UP. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "upseb' in short) sometimes in the year 1969 and since thereafter, is being run by the management, who are the officers of the Obera THErmal Power Station, which earlier was owned by UPSEB and since 14-1-2004 by UPRVUNL. THE college is a duly recognized educational institution by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , Allahabad under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1921) and the petitioners are employed as teachers in the college having been appointed on 1-7-1969, 1-7-1969, 9-8-1972, 25-6- 1967, 1-9-1971 and 1-8-1968 respectively. Though as per the petitioners, the conditions of service of the teachers of the College are governed by the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921, wherein the age of retirement was earlier 60 years and now 62 years, but the College management, are acting under the impression that the petitioner are governed by the provisions applicable to the employees of erstwhile UPSEB framed under Section 79 (C) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1948), wherein the age of retirement is 58 years and, therefore, have proceeded to retire them on attaining the age of 58 years, which, according to the petitioners, is illegal, since, they are governed by the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 and are entitled to continue till they attain the age of 62 years. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed stating that earlier the College was being managed by the UPSEB and now by UPRVUNL. The employees of the college are governed by the U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Shiksha Seva Nimavali, 1995 framed by erstwhile UPSEB under Section 79 (C) of Act of 1948, wherein the age of retirement is 58 years and, therefore, the petitioners have rightly been sought to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. It has also been stated that the Board for its employees had statutory power to frame regulations with respect to recruitment conditions of service, which includes the teachers and other staff of an educational institution of the UPSEB and statutory provisions having been made under Section 79 (C) of the Act of 1948, the same cannot be made subservient to the provisions of the State Act like Act of 1921 or the regulations framed thereunder and, therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners upon Regulation 2 I of Chapter Ill of the Regulations, under the Act of 1921 is clearly misplaced and provisions made under the Act of 1948 would override the provisions of Act of 1921. The petitioners have also filed a supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit wherein besides reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition, it has also been stressed that the college in question is receiving grant-in-aid under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "act of 1971" in short), as is apparent from the letter dated 30-1-2006 issued by the finance controller, Directorate of Education, U. P. , Allahabad addressed to District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and Sonbhadra communicating sanction of grant of Rs. 48,20,830/- for the College under the Act of 1971. Further, a copy of the amendment notification dated 6-1-2005 has been appended, whereby Regulation 21 Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 has been amended by substitution altering the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years.
(3.) HEARD Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra for the respondents. Though the respondents have taken a general stand that the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 are not at all applicable to the petitioners and they are governed by the statutory provisions framed by the erstwhile UPSEB in exercise of its power under Section 79 (C) of the Act of 1948, but it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that this question has already been decided in a number of cases, wherein UPSEB and UPRVUNL were also parties, holding that the conditions of service of the teachers working in the recognized institution managed by the UPSEB or UPRVUNL would be governed by the Regulations framed under Act of 1921 and not under the Regulations framed under Act of 1948. Some of the judgments are also on record, namely, Writ Petition No. 24222 of 1999 (Daroga Singh & Ors. v. UPSEB & Ors.) decided on 4-10-2002, Writ Petition No. 35792 of 1996 (Smt. Shaila Garg v. UPSEB & Anr.) and other connected matter decided on 30-5-1997 and Writ Petition No. 9244 of 1995 (Ravindra Nath Pandey v. Secretary, UPSEB & Ors.) decided on 10-9-1999. Of course, all the judgments have been rendered by Hon'ble Single Judges and it is informed by Sri Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents, that in many matters, Special Appeals have been filed, which are pending before this Court, but the judgments of the Hon'ble Single Judges holding that the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 are applicable to the teachers of the recognized college of erstwhile UPSEB have not been stayed in the pending Special Appeals. The nature of the interim orders passed in Special Appeal are that the beneficiaries in case loose the matters in Special Appeals will have to refund the entire salary to the employers for the period subsequent to the date, when they attain the age of 58 yeas. Thus, the situation, as it stands today, is that all the judgments of the Hon'ble Single Judges have precedential value and are binding on all the coordinate benches. I also do not find any reason to take a different view and, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that for the purpose of age of retirement, the provisions under Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 will govern the age of retirement of the petitioners.;