Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) AN I.A. No. 5733/2014 has been preferred by the Birsa Agricultural University with a prayer that the writ petition may be disposed of as infructuous in view of the orders passed in L.P.A. No. 45/2011 by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 25.07.2013 following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5527 -5543/2013 in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma vs. State of Bihar & others whereunder, it was held by the Apex Court that by virtue of UGC guidelines itself, the age of superannuation of teachers in the Universities under the State cannot be enhanced. The petitioner herein, after his retirement on 31.01.2013, had preferred the writ application seeking to challenge the notice of retirement dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure -5) whereunder he was informed that he would superannuate with effect from 31.01.2013 on attaining the age of 62 years. The petitioner had also made a prayer for directing the respondents to continue him in service till he attains the age of 65 years in view of UGC guidelines dated 31.12.2008 which is binding upon the respondent University. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent State of Jharkhand had consciously increased the age of superannuation of teachers working in the Universities in the State of Jharkhand and Governed by the Jharkhand State Universities Act, but such decision was not extended to the teachers of Birsa Agricultural University to which the petitioner belongs. It is submitted that when the policy decision to enhance the age of teachers of Universities has been consciously taken by the State, omission on the part of the respondents to consequentially enhance the age of teachers of the Agricultural Universities to 65 years is discriminatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the prayer made in the present writ application is not based solely upon the claim arising out of the UGC guidelines, but also on the basis of the decision of the State Government to enhance the age of such teachers to 65 years.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Birsa Agricultural University, has however resisted the contention of the petitioner. He has submitted that Birsa Agricultural University is guided by the Jharkhand Agricultural Universities Act, 2000. It is submitted that the decision of the State Government to enhance the age of teachers covered under the Jharkhand State Universities Act, would not ipso facto apply to the teachers under the Agricultural Universities, unless conscious decision is taken by the State to do so. It is submitted that the State Government by the notification dated 18.10.2014, a copy of which has been produced and is kept on record as well, have chosen to increase the age of teachers working under the Birsa Agricultural University to 65 years. It is submitted that the petitioner having retired on 31.01.2013 itself, cannot claim the benefit of enhanced age as the notification is only prospective in nature.;