Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/128/2005 of LALITA PRASAD PANDEY Vs PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL and ORS. on 30 December 2010
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.128 of 2005 (S/B) Dr. Lalita Prasad Pandey …….. Petitioner Versus Public Service Tribunal & others ..……Respondents Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Additional Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.128 of 2005 (S/B)
Dr. Lalita Prasad Pandey
…….. Petitioner
Versus
Public Service Tribunal & others
..……Respondents
Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents.
Date : December 30[th] 2010
Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V. K. Bist, J.
Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral)
It is contention of the petitioner that the pertaining to Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, University provides that if a teaching member of statute Garhwal any affiliated college retires on or after 2[nd] July of a particular year, he shall be permitted to work till 30[th] June of the following year. It appears that the petitioner was permitted to work in the college where he was a lecturer up to 22[nd]
December, 2001. Petitioner having not been permitted to work upto 30[th] June, 2002, he went before the Tribunal and claimed salary up to 30[th] June 2002. This claim of the petitioner having been rejected by the Tribunal, petitioner is before us.
2. A look at the statute, makes it abundantly clear that a teaching member has been permitted to work till 30[[th]]the following year only after taking into account A look at the statute, makes it abundantly clear that a teaching member has been permitted to work till 30[[th]] June of the requirement of the students. It, therefore, implies in it that the person should serve until the session is over on 30[th] June.
In the instant case, the college in question, where the petitioner was working was taken over by the Government on 16[[th]] August 2001. Before that on 2[[nd]]2001, petitioner reached the age of 60 years. Sixty years was the age of superannuation in the college in which petitioner member of a provincial college is 58 years. In 16[[th]]Nandan Bahuguna, Garhwal University. He having State Government on 16[[th]] August 2001. Before that on 2[[nd]] August 2001, petitioner reached the age of 60 years. Sixty years was the age of superannuation in the college in which petitioner was working. If the petitioner was working in the college after the same was provincialized, petitioner could not work even for one day for the retirement age of a teaching that background, petitioner could not serve the college beyond 16[[th]] August 2001 even under the said statute of the Hemwati being permitted to serve up to 22[nd] December 2001, the Tribunal rightly directed payment of remuneration of the petitioner up to that date. We, accordingly, found no fault in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
( V.K. Bist, J. ) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
30.12.2010
Arti