The High Court rejected a plea by a Senior Assistant seeking retirement at age 60 under University Rules. The Court held she was an employee of a Municipal Council college governed by Council rules mandating retirement at 58.
The petition for quashing the retirement order was dismissed with no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 10158 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 13.07.2009
Smt. Dropti Bajaj
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who was working as Senior Assistant in Shivalik College of Pharmacy, Nangal (respondent No.3 herein), has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P-8), whereby she was retired from service with effect from 31.10.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation; and further the order dated 15.5.2009 (Annexure P-15), passed by the Director, Local Government Punjab (respondent No.4 herein), whereby her representation against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.
In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cumTypist in Shivalik College, Naya Nangal in the year 1979. The said collage was an enterprise of Municipal Council, Nangal, and was managed by it. In the year 1983, the Management of Shivalik College established one
CWP No. 10158 of 2009
-2-
Pharmacy Wing in the college. In the year 1985, the Management framed the Bye-laws/Rules under Section 201 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, for management of the employees of the college. In the year 1988, the petitioner was posted in the Pharmacy Wing of the said college. In the year 1997, the Government took over the management of the Shivalik College, except the Pharmacy Wing, which remained under the management of the Municipal Council and the said Wing was named as Shivalik College of Pharmacy (respondent No.3). Since the petitioner was posted in Pharmacy Wing, she remained in respondent No.3 college as its employee. She did not raise any objection and also did not put any claim that she should be transferred to the Shivalik College, which was taken over by the Government. In the year 1999, the petitioner was given promotion in respondent No.3 college, with permission of the Local Government, from the post of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant in the pay scale of 58009200. These facts clearly indicate that the petitioner was the employee of respondent No.3 college, run by the Municipal Council. It is admitted position that all employees of the Municipal Council (except Class IV employees) retire on completion of 58 years of age. By the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner was also ordered to be retired from services on attaining the age of 58 years.
It is the case of the petitioner, as argued by her counsel, that as per her initial appointment letter, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-2, for other purposes, the petitioner was to be subject to such
CWP No. 10158 of 2009
-3-
rules and regulations which govern the terms and conditions of services of Non-teaching staff of other Non-Government Colleges affiliated to Punjabi University, Patiala. Therefore, according to the Rules of the Punjabi University, the petitioner should have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years. In this regard, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Recent Services Judgments, 660.
Undisputedly, when the petitioner was ordered to be retired from service, she was employee of respondent No.3 college, run by Municipal Council, Nangal. Admittedly, when she was initially appointed, she was employee of Shivalik College, which was also being run by the Municipal Council. Therefore, being an employee of a college, being run by the Municipal Council, the petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years, which is the age of retirement of the employees of the Municipal Council (except Class IV employees). The respondent No.3 college is not a Government aided private college, which is being run by the Municipal Council. All the employees of this college are the employees of the Municipal Council and their services are being governed by the Service Rules of the Municipal Council. As far as clause 3 of the appointment letter of the petitioner is concerned, it is clearly mentioned that “For other purposes”, the appointee will be subject to such rules and regulations which are governed by the terms and conditions of services of Non-teaching staff of other Non-Government Colleges affiliated to Punjabi University, Patiala.
CWP No. 10158 of 2009 -4-
With regard to the age of retirement, the employees of respondent No.3 college are to be governed by the Service Rules of the Municipal Council. There is no example, where an employee of respondent No.3 college (except Class IV employee) has been retired on attaining the age of 60 years. The judgment, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
July 13, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an employee of a Municipal Council-run college, is entitled to retirement age of 60 years under Non-Government College Rules rather than 58 years under Municipal Council Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surjit Singh v. State of PunjabDistinguished¶23
Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Recent Services Judgments, 660
Smt. Dropti Bajaj
State of Punjab
Shivalik College of Pharmacy
Director, Local Government Punjab
Municipal Council, Nangal
Satish Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
