B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th May, 2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2091 of 2009 by which the prayer of appellant for issuance of writ of mandamus for regularization of services of the appellant from 1st April, 2007 till 31st March, 2009 as well as payment of amount for that period was dismissed.
(2.) The short fact of the case is that the petitioner-appellant was working as Professor and Head of the Department of Skin, V.D. and Leprosy, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (hereinafter referred as 'R.I.M.S.') continued on the post till 31st March, 2007 after attaining the age of sixty years. The further case is that Governing Body of R.I.M.S. took a decision to enhance the retirement age from 60 to 62 years but the same was not implemented. The appellant handed over charge to his successor on 5th June, 2007. After retirement, he agreed to work for R.I.M.S. under a contract for a period of one year and joined as such and was allowed to work as Senior Professor of Department of Skin, V.D. and Leprosy, R.I.M.S. When the age of retirement was given retrospective effect from 31st December, 2006, on that date petitioner-appellant was serving as Professor at R.I.M.S., so he made representation before the competent authority for allowing him to continue to his original post till 31st March, 2009, the date on which the appellant would attain the age of 62 years. The services of petitioner-appellant was not regularized from the period 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2009 and no post retirement cum pensionary benefits for these periods were granted.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Resolution dated 9th April, 2008, the Government of Jharkhand enhanced the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years and the same was made effective from 31st December, 2006 and admittedly at that time petitioner was in regular service of R.I.M.S. He further submitted that on the advice of the administration he handed over his charge after receipt of direction of Deputy Director (Administration), R.I.M.S. communicated through his letter no. 3581 dated 5th June, 2007 (Annexure-1), petitioner handed over his charge on 15th June, 2007 (Annexure-2). He made a representation before the Director, R.I.M.S. through his letter dated 17th April, 2008 (Annexure-3) and prayed that he may be allowed to work as Head of the Department. The petitioner was constrained to work on contractual basis in the same Department to which he accepted to work from 22nd January, 2008 (Annexure-5). Learned counsel further submitted that being aggrieved by the attitude of the R.I.M.S. administration, he approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction but the Writ Court refused to issue direction for regularization of services and dismissed his writ application. It is also submitted that when the resolution of the Government was made effective from 31st December, 2006 enhancing the age of retirement and admittedly this appellant was working as Professor in the Department of R.I.M.S. so the appellant was entitled for extension of his service as age of retirement was increased and he should have been continued on the post till 31st March, 2009 after attaining the age of 62 years. Even the representation filed before the authority to recognize him as Head of the Department in the Department of Skin, V.D. and Leprosy but the same was not accepted. He relied on a decision of this Court passed in W.P. (S) No.415 of 2005 dated 12th November, 2008 by which the petitioners were held entitled for enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and the respondents were directed to treat them to be in service till the petitioners attained the age of sixty years. Against this order, L.P.A. No.299 of 2010 was preferred but the same stood dismissed vide order dated 19th November, 2010 and even the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. on 1st April, 2011 preferred by the State of Jharkhand in S.L.P. (Civil) No.7774 of 2011. The case of this petitioner-appellant is similar in nature.;