Prabir Kr. Dutta Gupta vs State of Tripura and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.

With the consent of the parties the writ petition is deposed of finally.

The Petitioner Shri Prabir Dutta Gupta served as Reader in the B.B. Evening College, Agartala. He was to retire on 31st July, 1999. Under Rule 9 of the Government Notification extending U.G.C. Scales 1996 to the College Teachers of Tripura (in short U.G.C. Scales, 1996), the Petitioner''s case for extension in service was considered. The Respondents have not allowed extension to the Petitioner the Petitioner has grievances against the same. By order dated 28th July 1999, it was ordered by this Court that the Petitioner will continue as Reader B.B. Evening College till further orders but for the period after 31st July'' 99 no salary will be paid to him.

The ground for refusal to extension of the Petitioner service is that the Petitioner is running a Travelling Agency, namely, M/s. Laxmi Travels in the name of his wife though prohibited by Rule 15 of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. There were allegations of black marketing in purchase and sale of tickets in the office of the said agency, the Petitioner being a party to it, vigilence enquiry has been registered against him, a Criminal case u/s 409/465/468 and 474 I.P.C. has been registered and the same is pending in the court. The vigilance department has not given clearance.

It is relevant to reproduce Rule 9 of the U.G.C. Rules, 1996, which runs as follows:

Age of superannuation shall be 58 years, but extension in service may be considered for a period of 1 (one) year each upto 60 (sixty) years of age, depending on the merit of each case. The Department shall work out appropriate mechanism to evaluate each such case of extension in service and notify separately.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule 9 clearly shows that extension case may be considered by the Department, the Department concerned has discretion in the matter the employee cannot claim extension as a matter of right. The Memorandum No. F. 19(2)CA/77/1 dated 10th May, 1993 issued by the Government of Tripura, Appointment & Service Department, which lays down guideline with regard to extension/re-employment beyond the age of superannuation puts embargo on extension in cases where vigilance clearance/departmental proceedings are either pending or contemplated. In the instant case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Respondents sought declaration from the A.R. Department on 15th June, 1995, but no reply was received from the said department. Under the memorandum No. F.8(11)-Fin(G)/86 dated 30th October, 1996 vide para 5 E, the Administrative Department and the Administrative Reforms Department should issue vigilance clearance positively within the first week of the month in which the employee is to retire. But since no reply was received from the A.R. Department in the first week of the month of July, 1999 and since the Petitioner was to retire on 31st July'' 99 it has to be declared that no vigilance case was pending against the Petitioner in terms of the office Memorandum No. F.1(3)-Fin(G)/77 dated 6th March, 1991 which contemplates that if no reply was received from the Vigilance Department within a period of one week, it shall be deemed that there is no departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retiring Government servant. The two office Memorandum dated 6.3.91 and 30th October, 1996 are with regard to finalisation of pensionary benefits of retiring employee, have no application to the case of an extension.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also argued that the Respondents had made up their mind from before not to grant of extension to the Petitioner as even though the Petitioner''s representation for extension before the Respondents was pending, the Principal of the College informed the Petitioner on 22.6.1999 that the Petitioner was to retire on 30th July 99. It may be observed that the representation of the Petitioner for extension was to be considered by the Government, the Principal of (he College informed the Petitioner about the date of his superannuation required under the Rules. From the mere fact that before the disposal of the Petitioner''s representation for extension the Principal of the College apprised the Petitioner about the date of his retirement, it cannot be said that the Respondents were predetermined not to grant extension to the Petitioner. A perusal of the Rule 9 of U.G.C. Rules, 1996 clearly shows that the extension of service after superannuation is not matter of right the Government may or may not grant extension after considering the merits of each case, the merits of the case may warrant or may not warrant extension the service after superannuation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Respondents have not issued extension merely on the ground that the vigilance case was pending against the Petitioner, the Respondents authority ought to have considered the merits of the criminal case and subject matter of vigilance against the Petitioner. The Petitioner''s case has not been considered at all on merit, no reason has been disclosed in the order whereby the extension has been refused. The Petitioner did not receive any adverse remarks during his entire career. No disciplinary proceeding was instituted against him.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Tripura Government Notification dated 26th March 1999 introducing in Rule 6 relating to age of superannuation at 58 years is in contravention of the U.G.C. notification and, as such, is violative of the provisions of Article 31, C, 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution, is illegal, wrong arbitrary, violative of the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the Petitioner, the principles of natural justice have been violated, the Petitioner''s case has not been considered at all, in fact it is a case of non-consideration, every administrative order including the impugned order must be supported by the evidence. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, Anil Kumar Vs. Nanak Chandra Verma, Khub Chand and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Dilip Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Union of India and another Vs. W.N. Chadha, State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and others, Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf Vs. New Education Institute and Others, The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1970 SC 1203 . Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Gorakhpore Vs. Shibban Lal Saxena and Others, Dr. Narayan Sharma and Another etc. Vs. Dr. Pankaj Kr. Lehkar and Others etc., Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur, The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. The Company Law Board and Others, Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Co. Law Board and Ors. AIR 1958 SC 86 Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others, Ramchandra Keshow (dead) by Lrs. v. Govinda Joti Charave and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 5 79 State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. Vs. McDowell and Co. and others, etc., Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyarthavathiru Sundara Swamigalme Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Thirmuruga Kirupananda Variyar Tharathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Konda Venugopala Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Konda Venugopal Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh Corpus Juris Volume 15-A, 582, 583, 584, Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 15, P. 5283. I have gone through all these cases and these cases do not render assistance to the Petitioner in view of the controversy involved in the case.

In a similar case. Bimal Kumar Chanda Petitioner v. The State of Tripura and Ors. in Civil Ride No. 239 of 1995 decided by this Court on Nth August. 1996, the Government decision to refuse extension on the ground that vigilance clearance was not available was upheld. In the instant case in view of the absence of vigilance clearance certificate and the pendency of a criminal case against the Petitioner, the refusal of extension to the Petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjustified or malafide. It may also be mentioned that no charge of malafide or bias has been made against any of the Respondents.

In the result, the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 28th July, 1999 stands vacated.