Dismissed

MD Najmuddin v. Human Resource Development

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2014WPC/1920/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order directing the petitioner's retirement at age 62 years due to lack of a National Award necessary for extended retirement to 65 years. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that without the National Award or declaration as a learned person in Persian, the petitioner was entitled only to the normal retirement age under Rule 20.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order of retirement at age 62 years upheld

MD Najmuddin Vs Human Resource Development — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1920 of 2013

¶2

.....

¶3

Md. Najmuddin … … Petitioner

¶4

-V e r s u s-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

¶6

... ... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶8

For the Petitioner : - Mr. Md. Jalisur Rahman,Adv. For the Respondents : - M/s JC to GP-IV For the Respondent-JAC :- M/s Richa Sanchita

¶9

05/03.03.2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has challenged an order of handing over of charge of the Madarsa to respondent no. 5, Head Maulvi, Madarsa Shamshia, Gorganwan, Godda(Jharkhand) vide letter no. 345 dated 05.03.2013, Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

¶11

According to the petitioner, he being a teacher of Persian subject and having a decree of FAZIL, which is equivalent to M.A., is supposed to retire as per the interpretation of Rule 21 of Bihar State Non-Government Madarsa (Service Condition) Rule, 1977, which governs the service conditions of such teachers working under the Madarsa on attaining 65 years of age on 28.02.2016.

¶12

It is submitted that the respondents, by the impugned letter, have treated the petitioner to have retired on attaining the age of 62 years while asking him to hand over the charge of Head Maulvi to the senior most teacher of the said Madarsa, which is arbitrary and in teeth of the said Rule.

¶13

The contention of the petitioner is that he is a teacher in Persian subject having a degree in FAZIL equivalent to MA, therefore, the other part of Rule 21 requiring an award at the national level is not applicable to the petitioner's case and he should be allowed to retire at the age of 65 years, which he would reach in February, 2016.

¶14

The respondents have advanced their interpretation of the same Rule, to submit that in order to avail the benefit of extended retirement at age of 65 years, the concerned teacher should have been honoured with National Award and should have been declared learned in the subject of Persian. Both of which the petitioner does not fulfill, therefore, as per Rule 20 of the 1977, which prescribes the age of retirement of any such

¶15

teacher in normal circumstances at the age of 62 years, the petitioner has been retired at the age of 62 years.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the Rule 21 of the 1977, which have been relied upon by both the parties, contained at Annexure-8 to the writ petition, it appears that in order to avail the extended age of retirement, the concerned teacher should have been honoured with National Award and if the teacher is in the subject of Persian, he should have been declared as learned man to avail of the enhanced age. On the other hand, a perusal of the Rule 20, it indicates that in all other normal circumstances, a teacher should retire at the age of 62 years.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am not persuaded by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the interpretation of Rule 21 of 1977 as the petitioner admittedly is not having any national honor for teaching in the said subject neither he was declared as learned person in the said subject. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶19

Kamlesh/

MD Najmuddin v. Human Resource Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Najmuddin v. Human Resource Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sidam Kumhar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nanhu Mochi Alias Prabhat Jee Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Prasad Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Raj Kishore Singh Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited And Ors.

Birendra Kumar Thakur Vs Labour Employment And Training

Premlata Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Its Managing Director And Ors.