Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Dhiman vs Panjab University, Chandigarh

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—CM NOs. 7323 & 7347 of 2016

Civil Misc. No. 7323 of 2016 has been preferred by respondent No.6-Dr.Sandeep Puri, Professor, Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Sector 26, Chandigarh and Civil Misc. No.7347 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 i.e. Panjab University, Chandigarh. These applications have been taken up for hearing together as the prayer in both these applications is for vacation of the stay order dated 20.6.2016 granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner.

Claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years as Principal of the private Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Such Institution is affiliated to the Panjab University/respondent No.1. Case in a nut-shell set up on behalf of the petitioner in the main writ petition is that the age of retirement of Teachers/Principal in the Homeopathic Medical Colleges in the country would be governed by the Homeopathic Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homeopathic Colleges and Attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013 and whereunder it has been prescribed that the age of superannuation shall be the same as laid down in UGC Regulations which, in turn, is 65 years. It is in the light of such contention that the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 2.6.2016 and 16.6.2016 at Annexures P10 and P12 respectively, whereby the respondent-Panjab University has direct retirement of the petitioner upon his having attained the age of 60 years and has declined extension to him. Petitioner''s case is that the provisions of superannuation contained in the conditions of affiliation mentioned in the Panjab University Calender would not hold the field to the extent they are repugnant to the UGC Regulations.

On 20.6.2016, the petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court and ex parte interim order was passed to the following effect:

"Present : Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioner.

....

Heard.

Notice of motion for 14.7.2016.

In a similar writ petition in CWP No. 11988 of 2014-Dr. Bhura Singh Ghuman v. Panjab University, Chandigarh and another, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order allowing the writ petitioner to continue in service till the next date of hearing.

To maintain consistency, the petitioner is allowed to continue in service till the next date of hearing. The period of service shall be subject to the final decision of the writ petition.

Sd/-

(M. JEYAPAUL)"

The respondent-Panjab University and private respondent No.6 seek vacation of such interim order.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer made in these two connected applications deserves to be accepted.

The issue to be adjudicated by this Court in the main writ petition is with regard to the age of superannuation of the petitioner. By virtue of the impugned orders dated 2.6.2016 and 16.6.2016, Annexures P10 and P12, issued by the respondent- Panjab University, the petitioner has been directed to be retired upon attaining the age of 60 years and extension stands declined. Permitting the petitioner to continue in service beyond the age of 60 years by virtue of an interim direction virtually tantamounts to granting the main relief in his favour without even adjudicating upon the validity of the impugned orders. The same would be impermissible. In the eventuality of the petitioner succeeding and his prayer in the main writ petition being allowed, it would always be open for this Court to mould the relief even for the period for which he has remained out of service.

There is another aspect of the matter. Connected petitions have also been filed in this Court raising the controversy with regard to age of superannuation. This Court in the matter of granting interim relief has intervened only in such cases where the employee concerned had not already stood retired/relieved. This would be apparent from the orders appended as Annexure A/5 (colly) along with Civil Misc. No.7323 of 2016 and Annexure A/2 (colly) along with Civil Misc. No.7347 of 2016. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, vide impugned order dated 2.6.2016, Annexure P10, respondent-Panjab University, Chandigarh had declined extension to the petitioner beyond 31.5.2016 as Principal, Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Sector 26, Chandigarh and, accordingly, direction had been issued for charge of the Principal to be handed over to the senior most teacher. In other words, the petitioner was held to be retired w.e.f. 31.5.2016 by reckoning the age of superannuation to be 60 years as per Regulation 7, Panjab University Calender, Vol.1, page 172. Be that as it may, as per Annexure A/4 appended with Civil Misc. No.7323 of 2016, the petitioner had handed over the charge of the post of Principal to Dr.Sandeep Puri, respondent No.6 in the Forenoon of 20.6.2016. Such factual position is not disputed by Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate appearing for the petitioner - non-applicant and who states that the petitioner handed over charge to respondent No.6 at 10.30 a.m. and was, thus, relieved of the post of Principal. Even though the writ petition had been filed on 20.6.2016 and upon mention had been taken up on board on the same date, yet Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate has been candid in submitting that the petition had matured for hearing only at 5.30 p.m. Under such factual position, the petitioner was obligated and duty bound to inform his counsel/this Court that he already stood relieved from the post in the morning hours of 20.6.2016. He has failed to do so. The object was to procure a favourable interim order from this Court by way of concealment. This Court entertains no doubt whatsoever that had the petitioner apprised his counsel as regards his relieving from the post at 10.30 a.m., Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate would have certainly, in turn, informed this Court accordingly during the evening hours when the writ petition had matured for hearing. This Court is constrained to observe that the conduct of the petitioner has been wholly inappropriate.

For the reasons recorded above, both the applications are allowed. The interim order dated 20.6.2016 stands vacated.

Main case

List for further consideration on 22.9.2016.