Diwakar Vasudeo Chamat vs Zilla Parishad

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the notice of superannuation dt. 30.6.1999 issued by respondent no. 2 to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years.

Mr. H.A. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2628 of 1991, dt. 3.9.2004. In paragraph 6 therein, this Court has observed thus:

"It is not in dispute that the petitioner satisfies the above criteria. The petitioner''s right to superannuate on completion of 60 years of age is doubted on the ground that the petitioner was not working in a secondary school on 31.12.1965, but was working in IEM School (Independent Indian-English Middle School). It IEM Schools were governed and regulated by the provisions of the MP Education Act, the service conditions would apply to its employees also. IEM schools were the schools imparting education from standard V to standard VIII and the said schools were neither attached to the High Schools nor to the Primary Schools IEM schools were independent. IEM schools were very much governed by the provisions of the MP Education Act. Various provisions made in the MP Education Act and the School Code reveal that IEM Schools were regulated by the provisions of the then School Code. Regulation 14 brings home this position. The MP Education Act and Chapter 12 thereof regulates secondary schools (which include High Schools). All middle schools which were attached to the High Schools (High School Sections) and Indian-English Middle Schools. No other middle schools were regulated by the said Act and the Regulations barring IEM Schools and Middle Schools attached to High Schools. The Other middle schools and middle schools attached to primary school were not governed by the said Act and the Regulations. In this view of the matter, it has to be concluded that the petitioner is entitled to the protection in regard to the age of superannuation. "

Our attention is invited to the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 586 of 1997 on 8th July, 2011 by the Division Bench of this Court, in which it was declared that the petitioner in that case, who was similarly circumstanced as an Assistant Teacher in Secondary School in Vidarbha region since prior to 31.12.1965, is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. This Court was pleased to quash the order retiring the petitioner in that case at the age of 58 years.

In the ruling in the case of M.G. Pandke and others Vs. Municipal Council, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha and others, the Apex Court has considered the case of teachers serving in Secondary School who were made permanent on 31st December, 1965 and held that their age of retirement would be 60 years. The Apex Court had set aside bye-law 4 of the Bye laws in that case on the ground that the Municipal Council, Hinganghat outstepped its jurisdiction in framing the bye-laws and directed that service of the appellants in that case shall be governed by the Secondary School Code as enforced by Regulation No. 19(7)(xvi) of the Maharashtra Regulations. Thus, the bye-laws framed by the Municipal Council providing for the age of retirement as 58 years was quashed. That being so, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has already considered the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the Municipal School in Vidarbha Division of Maharashtra as 60 years instead of 58 years while setting aside the bye-laws framed to reduce the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years.

In the ruling in the case of Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, a group of Writ Petitions was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court and following position of law was mentioned as emerged from the discussion for claiming benefit of Regulations 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Regulations, 1977. This Court expressed its opinion on teachers who had completed one year of temporary service and are continued in service as on 31.12.1965 that they are deemed to have been confirmed as teachers on 31.12.1965 by virtue of clarificatory letters of the State Government and they will be entitled to claim benefit of Regulation 7 providing for 60 years of service.

In view of the above discussion and the aforementioned rulings, the issue is no more res integra and the petitioner herein was, thus, entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years and accordingly, he is entitled for the retirement dues and benefits on the premise that he had retired at the age of 60 years. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the petition.

The petitioner shall be granted all retirement benefits on the ground that he was entitled to continue till the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years in view of the legal position in view of the rulings cited above.

Fixation of all retirement dues shall be done as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.