AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 being the authorities under the Assam University, Silchar.
The petitioner, who was serving as a Professor of Law in the Assam University, retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 11.02.2016. By referring to paragraph 9 of the Statute 27 of the respondent University on Service conditions, Salary Scales, Classifications and Qualifications of Teachers, the petitioner makes a claim that as per the proviso thereof, if the date of superannuation of a teacher falls at any time during the academic session, the teacher shall continue in service and retire on the last day of that academic session or at the end of the month, whichever is later. According to the petitioner, although he had retired from service on 11.02.2016, the academic session of that year came to an end on 30.06.2016 and therefore he ought to have retired on 30.06.2016. As he had already been retired from service, the petitioner claims the financial benefits of remaining service for the aforesaid period.
Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent Assam University on the other hand refers to the minutes of the 100th meeting of the Executive Council of the Assam University held on 03.01.2015, wherein in paragraph EC:100:01-15:66.4, the provision of Statute 27 stood amended by providing that the age of retirement would now be 65 years, but with the provision that if the date of superannuation of a teacher falls at any time during the month, the teacher continues in service and would retire at the end of the month. According to Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel upon the amendment to Statute 27 having coming into effect, the earlier benefit under the un-amended Statute 27 that the teacher to retire at the end of the academic session is no longer available. As the petitioner had retired on 11.02.2016, the provision of the amended Statute 27 was in force and therefore he was rightly retired at the end of the month in which his date of superannuation otherwise had fallen.
Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon clause 6 of the University Statute which provides that every Ordinance made by the Executive Council, shall be submitted to the Visitor within two weeks from the date of its adoption and the Visitor has the power within four weeks thereof to suspend the operation of any such Ordinance or to withdraw the Ordinance and his decision shall be final on the aspect.
By referring to clause 6 of the Statute, it is the submission of Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Ordinance brought in by the 100th meeting of the Executive Council of the Assam University held on 03.01.2015, had not yet been given its effect and therefore, the petitioner would be governed by the un-amended Statute 27 providing that his date of retirement would be the last day of the academic session.
We are unable to accept the said contention of Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner from the point of view that clause 6 of the Statute gives the power to the Visitor to either suspend or withdraw a operation. The very expression 'to suspend or to withdraw the Ordinance' would give the indication that the Ordinance was already brought into effect or otherwise there would be no requirement to either suspend or withdraw it.
From the said point of view, we are to understand that the amended Statute 27 as per the 100th meeting of the Executive Council of the Assam University held on 03.01.2015 had been brought into effect and was in force when the date of retirement of the petitioner fell on 11.02.2016.
From such point of view, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.