AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is directed against the order dated September 2, 1995, passed by respondent No. 3 and contained Annexure7 to the writ petition, by means of which continuance of the petitioner, after attaining the age of 60 years on 2421985, till 30th June, 1986 was refused by the respondent authorities.
According to Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 2491985, when he completed 60 years of age. However, he was entitled to continue to the post of Professor of Mathematics and Head of the Department, Applied Sciences, Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College, Gorakhpur upto 30th June, 1986, till the end of academic session.
In support of his aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions contained in Statute 7.11 of the Statutes of Gorakhpur University, according to which, if the date of superannuation of a teacher does not fall on 30th June he shall continue to hold office till the end of the academic session, that is, 30th June following, and he will be treated in employment from the date of superannuation till June 30th following.
In the writ petition, an ad interim order was passed by this Court ort 30th September, 1995 directing the respondents not to compel the petitioner to handover charge till end of 1985 session. According to the petitioner, even after passing of the aforesaid interim order, when petitioner went to the College and reported for duties, he was not allowed by the respondentauthorities to resume his duties. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to salary upto 30th June, 1986, that is, till end of the academic session of 1985.
In the meantime, the petitioner filed Criminal Contempt Petition No. 542 (C) of 1985, which was ultimately dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid contempt petition was dismissed on technical grounds.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent authorities to decide the question of payment of salary of the petitioner till 30th June, 1986 within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order. In any event, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to get full salary, during the end of the next academic session, that is, upto 30th June, 1986.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Parties shall bear their own costs.