APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, admittedly retired as a Demonstrator in Sindri College, Sindri, a constituent college of Vinobha Bhave University (V.B.U.) on 29.2.2008. After 3 years of his retirement he has preferred the instant writ petition in August 2011, on the one hand seeking post retirement benefits as also scale of Demonstrator (Selection Grade) while on the other hand he is seeking quashing of the notification dated 19.2.2008(Annexure -6) of the respondent no. 6, V.B.U., as per which he has been superannuated on reaching the age of 60 years. Further prayer has been made for declaration that petitioner, who was re -designated as Demonstrator should have been superannuated at the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits in terms of the relevant provisions of 2(v) of the Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000. He has also sought for payment of salary for 2 years till the age of 62 as he was forced to superannuate at the age of 60.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that notification dated 28.9.2007(Annexure -2) which has re -designated all the Laboratory Assistant/Technician/In -charge to the post of Demonstrator denied the status of Teachers to them. The said Clause 4 was challenged by several such re -designated Demonstrator in W.P.S. No. 4752 of 2008 (annexed as Annexure -3) in which vide judgment dated 27.1.2010 learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the said Clause 4 of the said notification as it was found to be infringing the right to equality. It is submitted that as a result thereof those who were re -designated as Demonstrator were to be treated as Lecturer. Reference has also been made to another judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.S. No. 1459 of 2010 and another analogous case where drawing inference from para 11 of the judgment rendered in W.P.S. No. 4752 of 2008, such re -designated petitioners have been treated to be Teaching staffs entitled to continue in service till the age of 62 years which is the age of retirement for Teaching staffs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that retirement of the petitioner at the age of 60 years is arbitrary and premature and he is also entitled to the benefit of enhanced age and consequential benefits, thereof. Respondent -Universities and the State Government have seriously contested the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated on their part that the petitioner retired in the year February, 2008 itself and is now trying to seek benefit of the judgment rendered in 2010 pursuant to the writ petition preferred by other persons for seeking such relief. It is further submitted that petitioner cannot avail the benefit of enhanced retirement age by virtue of said judgments as he has already retired in 2008 itself while the judgments were delivered in 2010.;