R K NARENDRA SINGH, S/O R K NUNGSHIBISANA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Jotibala, learned counsel for the RIMS respondent as well as Mr. S. Suresh, learned CGC for the Union respondents.

(2.) This writ petition involves determination of the age of superannuation in respect of a non-medical teaching faculty in the RIMS, of a person who is not holding any medical degree but who is a part of the teaching faculty. When this matter was taken up on 18.01.2017, this Court passed the following order:

(3.) Pursuant to the said order dated 18.01.2017, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned Sr. Counsel for the RIMS respondent has submitted before this Court that he has instruction to the effect that the provisions relating to age of superannuation as applicable to the members of the Central Health Services is not applicable to the RIMS. However, this Court is of the view that such instruction in the facts of the case is not relevant to decide the issue raised. As mentioned above, as reflected in the order dated 18.01.2017 quoted above, the main grievance of the petitioner relates to the impugned order dated 03.10.2011 by which the age of retirement of Non-Medical Teaching Faculty was fixed at 60 years purportedly in pursuance of the decision of the Agenda Item No. 6 of the 42nd Meeting of the Executive Council, Society of RIMS, Imphal held on 5th August, 2011, which the petitioner contends cannot be sustained, for the simple reason that the Executive Council, Society of RIMS, Imphal in the said 42nd Meeting held on 5th August, 2011 never took any decision for fixing the age of superannuation for Non-medial teaching faculty at 60 years. Admittedly, there is an order dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Director of the RIMS which had enhanced the age of superannuation of the faculty staff of the RIMS from 62 to 65 years on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming his continuation in service till 65 years. The aforesaid order dated 31.12.2008 has not been recalled by the authorities. However, the effect of the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2008 is sought to be nullified by the subsequent order dated 03.10.2011 which is challenged in the writ petition. In other words, if the subsequent order dated 03.10.2011 is upheld, the petitioner has to retire in terms of the subsequent order dated 03.10.2011. However, it has been contended by the petitioner that the said subsequent order dated 03.10.2011 cannot be sustained as the fixation of age of superannuation in respect of Nonmedical teaching faculty was based purportedly on the decision which was never taken.