- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly challenging the order passed by th Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, whereby, the petitioner has been denied salary for the period running from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was serving with the Government Sanskrit College, initially in the State of Bihar and upon bifurcation in the State of Jharkhand. As per the respondents, it was in dispute whether the petitioner should be treated as government employee or an employee of the University or in the University services. This clarification is required, as per the respondents, because of the fact that the State Government employees are to retire upon reaching the age of 58 years whereas the employees, who are in the University services, are going to retire upon reaching the age of 60 years. Thus, for same type of cadre, there will be two types of Lecturer, one who will retire at the age of 58 years and the other, who will retire at the age of 60 years. As per the petitioner, he was in the Government Sanskrit College, which was owned, managed and controlled by the respondent -University and is also an affiliated college to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and, therefore, he is in the University services and, thus, his age of retirement will be 60 years. The petitioner continued to work even after attaining the age of 58 years, as a Lecturer and he was also In -charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College for 59th year's service and salary has already been paid to the petitioner by the State Government, but, for the salary from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003 the dispute has arisen. The respondents have not paid the salary and, therefore, the 2.earlier writ petition was preferred by the petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 5796 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 2nd December, 2003, wherein, direction was given to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The said representation has been decided by the respondents vide order dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation nor any fraud has been played by him and with all full knowledge of the respondents, the petitioner has worked as a Lecturer and was also made In -charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College for the two years, in question, i.e. after 58 years till he reached the age of 60 years i.e. up to 31st August, 2003. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact two classes, created for the same work of Lecturer, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, namely, a class of Lecturers who are working in Government College and another class of Lecturers, who are working in a non -governmental college. For first type of class, the age of retirement will be 58 years whereas for another class, the age of retirement will be 60 years. In fact, all the Lecturers are doing the same job in the college and, thus, there cannot be a different age of retirement. There is no reasonable nexus with the object, sought to be achieved. Like persons must be treated alike. The discrimination made by the respondents tantamounts to violation of the right of equality of the petitioner, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;