Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6233-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 76 of 2025 1 - Ram Kumar Verma S/o Shri Sukhi Ram Verma, Aged About 61 Years, Working As Head Master, Government Middle School Kolikapuri, Attached SAGES, Chadora, Block - Durg, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anupam Kumar Jopher, S/o Shri Nelsan Jopher, Aged About 61 Years, Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Korar, Block - Bhanupratappur, District - North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. Jagdish Das Kuldeep S/o Shri Landal Das Kuldeep, Aged About 60 Years, Working As Head Master, Government Middle School, Nagrodi, Block- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nigar Anjum Khan W/o Shri Jafar Hussain Khan, Aged About 61 Years, Working As Lecturer (In-Charge Principal), Government High School, Bhardakala, Khairagarh Block- Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
5 - Gorelal Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramadhar Gupta, Aged About 61 Years, Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Begeridand, Block Odgi, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Beni Ram Verma S/o Late Shri Bisambhar Verma, Aged About 60 Years, Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School Medesara, Block - Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Appellants /Petitioners Versus Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector, North Baster Kanker, District - North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7- The Collector, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai, Chhattisgarh 8 - The Collector, Surajpur, District- Surajpur C.G. 9 - The District Education Officer, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 10 - The District Education Officer, North Baster Kanker, District - North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 11 - The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, Disrict- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 12 - The District Education Officer, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan - Gandai, Chhattisgarh 13 - The District Education Officer, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 14 - The Block Education Officer, Block - Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 15 - The Block Education Officer, Block - Dhamdha, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 16 - The Block Education Officer, Block- Bhanupratappur, District - North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 17 - The Block Education Officer, Block- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 18 - The Block Education Officer, Block - Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh 3 19 - The Block Education Officer, Block- Odgi, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Verma and Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocates. For State/Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghle, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04-02-2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 10-12-2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.8062/2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners (appellants herein) has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case as projected in the petition as well as in the appeal are that, petitioners are working on the various posts of School Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh and they have been awarded by the Hon’ble President of India for their performance in the School Education Department as “National Awardee Teacher”. They have also been appreciated by the various institutions & organizations for their contribution made towards enrichment and enlightenment in the teaching standard of the Schools of Chhattisgarh State, hence, the certificate of appreciations have been issued in this regard in their favour. It is 4 submitted that as per Section 51(a) of the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, the retirement age of the Govt. Teacher is prescribed as “Sixty Two”. Hence the petitioners/appellants after attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years will get retired from their respective posts. Their contention is that as the petitioners are “National Awardee Teacher, by the Hon’ble President of India, they are entitled for getting benefit of extension of their service of the period 02 years after prescribed retirement age, resulting to which they may be retired at the age of 64 years. It has been contended that as per the Circular No. F.1-9/80-Sch.5 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Education and Culture, Govt. of India, dated 30-06- 1981, if the State Govt. wants it can made the extension of service of National Awardee Teachers. The Additional Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya had made an amendment in the Section 56(1-g) of the Chhttisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 and increased the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years for the post of “Veterinary Medical”. It is further submitted in the petition that the State of Uttar Pradesh vide its circular has extended the service period of 02 years of the Teachers who has been awarded as National/State Awardee Teachers. In view of the aforementioned submissions, the petitioners made a representation to the respondent authorities and requested to extend their service tenure for 02 years as they fall under the 5 category of the National/State Awardee Teacher, but no necessary steps have been taken by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to extend the service period of the petitioners for 02 years as they are National /State Awardee Teacher, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to decide the representations (Annexure P/6) of the petitioners within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” After hearing the parties and considering the material
Decision
available in record of the writ petition the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 10-12-2024 which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the petitioners are claiming the extension of service period of 02 years as they are National/ State Awardee teachers and there are sufficient and valid grounds for the same. Such extension may be granted to those who meet the necessary criteria, including qualifications, experience, reliability and functional need of the employer. The 6 right to seek an enhancement in the age of superannuation is in line with the principles of equality and fairness. The petitioners are well-versed with the nature of work assigned to them and there is no any adverse remark in their service record. He would further submit that extension of their service period may greatly contribute to overall quality of education provided by the institution. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petition filed by the petitioners may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that extension of retirement age is matter of Government policy and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it includes various factors such as financial and administrative considerations and presently, there is no such provision. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents annexed with the petition as well as the appeal. 6. After considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 708, Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Associations V. State of Kerala, 2018 (7) SCC 314, Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 996 and Jitendra Singh Naruka Vs. University of Delhi and others, 7 2016 SCC Online Del 5893 the learned Single Judge has observed in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under:- “10. In a case where the Government servants have claimed enhancement of age of superannuation as a matter of right, the Court has to consider factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. The equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only. 11. In the present case, the petitioners who are Head Masters and Lecturers belong to the teaching cadre whereas the post of Veterinary Medical is a different cadre. The qualifications required for both posts are entirely different. The nature of work is also not similar. Thus there is no nexus between the responsibilities attached to both posts. 12. Admittedly, the petitioners are national awardee teachers; their achievements can inspire young people to pursue careers in the education sector and may contribute to the betterment of society. The extension of the retirement age is a policy decision of the State and at present there is no such provision to extend the age of superannuation of National/State awardee teachers. 13. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.” 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioners have claimed extension of their service period for two years on the ground that they are 8 National/State awardee teachers, but there is no such provision to extend the age of superannuation of the petitioners and the same is policy decision of the State. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil