High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 09 JH CK 0072

Dr. Vijoy Kumar Srivastava vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 26 September 2005 · Citation: (2006) 2 JCR 229

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Acting C.J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 3435 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 265 words

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

1.

The petitioner was in the services of the Ranchi University. As per Section 67 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (originally Bihar State Universities Act, 1976), he was to superannuate on 30th June, 2005 on completion of 60 years of age. On proposal by the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years, the mater was placed before the Cabinet and the Cabinet approved the proposal on 14th December, 2004. Thereafter, Gazette Notification was issue on 25th July, 2005 vide Annexure 7, suitably amending Section 67 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 and the age of superannuation was increased from 60 to 62 years.

2.

The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for direction on the respondents to implement the decision of the Cabinet of Government of Jharkhand, as held in its meeting dated 14th December, 2004. According to the respondents, now the said decision having already been implemented, the writ petition has become infructuous.

3.

On the other hand, petitioner has challenged the amendment as made by the Notification dated 25th July 2005, on the ground that it has been made effective with prospective date. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Cabinet having already approved the proposal for enhancement of age on 14th December, 2004, the Act should have been amended with effect from that date. However, such submission cannot be accepted, as it is for the Legislature to determine the effective date for the amendment of an Act.

4.

There being no merit the writ petition is hereby dismissed.