AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.—With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally. It is a case, where respondent-employee challenged the action of the petitioner/Managing Committee for retiring him at the age of 58 years. The challenge sustained before Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal. A challenge to the said order has been made herein, but in absence of the interim order, the respondent-employee worked for two years after the age of retirement. He has also been extended all due retiral benefits considering his services upto the age of 58 years. The only dispute, now, remains regarding salary of a period of two years, which has actually been discharged by him.
My attention has been drawn towards the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhanwar lal Sharma (Tripathi) versus State of Rajasthan & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/1997 dated 29th January, 2003, wherein direction for payment of salary for a period of two years after attaining the age of 58 years was given. The pensionary benefits were made admissible treating the age of retirement at 58 years.
Both the counsel have agreed for the similar order. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of, with the following directions:--
(i) Respondent-employee would be entitled to the salary for period of two years after attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years. It would, however, not to be taken in endorsement of treating the age of superannuation to be 60 years. The aforesaid issue is kept open and to be decided appropriately in future.
(ii) Retiral benefits would be admissible to the respondent-employee on the pay-scale he was getting at the age of 58 years i.e. at the stage when respondent-employee retired by the petitioner-managing committee.