The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by an employee seeking extension of re-employment service beyond the age of superannuation, holding that extension is not a statutory right as no provision entitles continuation.
The Writ Appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THETWENTIETHDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLETHE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HoN'BLEsRl JUSTIiE naHtNnHoKUMARsHAVlLl
WRIT APPEALNO:316O F 2015
Writ Appealunder clause'15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 17.03.2015 passedin WP No'8789 of 2015 on the file of the High Court'
Between:
prorDastaseer,llekil","f; l'|!S,i3,l3.illt%:i,fl|i,Ylt'r#?fi #;.^'"P*:::: tvlaulanaAzad Natlc AND AzadNational Urdu University' Gachibowli' 1 The HvderabaRegistrar,, d-50003Maulana 2 al UrduUniversity" Gachibowli,HYderabad - 500032, 2. MaulanaA zadNation Repby itsRegistrar erCourt Orderdated 13 04 201 5 in .RESPONDENT ResPondent No2 is imPleaded as P AMPNo . BB9of 20'15) AMP.No:9410F2015 2 oF2015 l.A.N PetitionunderSection 1 51 CPCPrayingthatin hthe Courtcircumstances stated may be Pleased toin ortof the Petition'the Hig theaffidavit filed in suPP $3t2014-15t1192'dated s No.MANUU/ER'I(BYF suspend the proceeding ellantin service ctionsto continue the aPP 09.03.2015 with further dire SMT.K. UDAYASRt Cou nselfor the APPellant: Counselfor ResPondents:SRI KRAMAKANTHREDDY
AND
TheCourt made the following:JUDGMENT
RAS JUSTICESA TIIE IIoN,BLETIIE C AND I RI{I TIIEHON 'BLESRIJUSTICE
No .316of 2015
(Per the Hoft'btethe ChiefJustice SatishChandraSl,flttd)
The presentwrit appeal is arising out of an order dated 17.03.2015passedby the learned Single Judge in W"P.No.66O5of 2015.
The facts of thecase reveal that the writ petition was preferred by the appellant/writpetitioner claiming extension beyond the period ofcontractual appointment. The undisputed facts also reveal that after superannuation of the appellalt/writ petitioner, he was given reemployment by an order dated 16.12.2013 for a period of two years and he wanted further extension, because it was mentioned in the order that the tenure can be further extended. After completion of two years he came up before this Court and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
The appeliant/writ petitioner has certainly attained \ the age of superannuation. He was granted extension for a
)
period of two years after his retirement by an order dated 16.12.2013 and he wanted furtherextension.
In the considered opinion of thisCourt, the learned Single Judgewas justifiedin dismissingthe writ petition, as re-employment/extensionof service after retirementis not a statutoryright. The appellant/writpetitioner has not been able topoint out any statutory provision of law which entitleshim to continuebeyond the age of superannuation andtherefore,thelearnedSingleJudgewasjustifiedin dismissingthe writ petition' This Court also does not find aryreason to interferewith the order passed by the
learnedSingleJudge'
ResultantlY'the writ appealstands dismissed' Themiscellaneousapplications pending' if any' sha1l standclosed' There shall be no order as t1 costs'
^s$iPiiisA#['+'# ,TRUECOPYII sEc#J''"'*
'",r y,*fl: :'f, Atx?ii".[35"Y'%' u "r tliEE",r""*ff NR" {k,
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2010412022
'1 tiEt STA I,1'
( t
a'
ic
lc:
21 JlJ! 2[U a
h
JUDGMENT
WA.No.316 of 201S
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL
WTHOUT COSTS
Xr*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee is entitled to statutory right for re-employment extension beyond superannuation.
Whether the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition regarding extension after retirement.
A. Prasad
Maulana Azad National Urdu University
Satish Chandra Sharma
Rajendra Kumar Shantilal Shah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
